PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1995

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 16, 1995

Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1995 - Revises provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act regarding the Chesapeake Bay to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1) continue the Chesapeake Bay Program; and (2) maintain a Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Requires the Office to support the Chesapeake Executive Council (signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement to protect the Bay) by: (1) implementing activities that support the Program; (2) making available information pertaining to the environmental quality and living resources of the Bay; (3) assisting the signatories in implementing action plans; (4) assisting in the development of strategies to improve Bay water quality and living resources; and (5) implementing outreach programs. Establishes a Chesapeake Bay Federal Agencies Committee to coordinate Federal activities relating to Bay restoration. Directs: (1) the Administrator, at the request of a State affected by the interstate management plan developed pursuant to the Program, to make a grant to implement management mechanisms contained in the plan if the State has approved and committed to implement all or substantially all aspects of the plan; and (2) Federal agencies that own or operate facilities within the Bay watershed to assess the facilities to ensure Program compliance and include a plan or program for addressing such impacts in the report to the President. Requires the Administrator to: (1) establish a habitat restoration program in the watershed to develop and demonstrate cost-effective techniques for restoring wetlands, forest riparian zones, and other Bay habitats (and authorizes grants to public or private entities to carry out such programs); and (2) develop a basinwide toxics reduction strategy, as well as research and monitoring to improve understanding of intermedia transfers of toxic pollutants and the ultimate fate of the pollutants within the Bay ecosystem (and authorizes financial assistance for specified activities). Directs the Administrator to study and report to the Congress: (1) evaluating implementation of the Agreement; (2) determining whether Federal environmental programs and other activities adequately address the priority needs identified in the Agreement; (3) assessing the priority needs required by the Program management strategies and how the priorities are being met; and (4) making recommendations for improved Program management. Authorizes appropriations.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD] · D–MD

Committees

  • Environment and Public Works Committee
3 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

  2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8550-8552)

  3. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.936 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.936 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.936 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.936 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources