PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 13, 1996
Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants: (1) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Act) to appropriate instrumentalities for the construction of treatment works (including combined sewer overflow facilities) to serve coastal localities; and (2) to States for assistance for the construction of treatment works and alternative wastewater treatment systems to serve small communities. Authorizes appropriations. Modifies the Act's: (1) definition of "treatment works" to include acquisition of the land that will be an integral part of the treatment process or will be used for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such treatment and acquisition of other lands, and interests in lands, which are necessary for construction; and (2) policy on cost effectiveness to provide that a project for waste treatment and management undertaken with Federal assistance by any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency shall be that system which constitutes the most economical and cost-effective treatment works, subject to specified requirements. Requires that each permit issued for a discharge from a combined storm and sanitary sewer conform with the combined sewer overflow control policy signed by the Administrator on April 11, 1994. Authorizes the Administrator or a State with an approved program to issue a permit for such a discharge that includes a schedule for compliance with a long-term control plan under the control policy up to 15 years, subject to extension under specified circumstances. Modifies the Act to allow sums available to each State water pollution control revolving fund to be used only for providing financial assistance to activities which have as a principal benefit the improvement or protection of water quality of navigable waters to a municipality, intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency or other person. Extends the repayment period for loans from a State water pollution control revolving fund for disadvantaged communities. Permits the State, in making a loan to a disadvantaged community, to charge a negative interest rate of not to exceed two percent to reduce the unpaid principal of the loan, subject to specified limitations. Revises Act provisions regarding the allotment of funds to set forth a table of percentages of sums authorized for various States for FY 1996 through 2000. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Blute, Peter I. [R-MA-3] · R–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.3639 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.
Examine H.R.3639 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.
Examine H.R.3639 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.
Examine H.R.3639 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.