PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 11, 1996
Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Act of 1996 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue water quality criteria for pathogens in coastal recreation waters. Requires States to adopt consistent water quality standards. Requires the Administrator to publish regulations specifying methods to be used by States to monitor coastal recreation waters during periods of use by the public for compliance with standards. Requires notification of local governments and the public of water quality standards violations. Directs the Administrator to: (1) issue guidance on uniform assessment and monitoring procedures for floatable materials in coastal recreation waters; and (2) specify the conditions under which the presence of floatable material constitutes a threat to public health and safety. Requires studies and reports to the Congress on developing better indicators for detecting harmful bacteria and viruses in coastal recreation waters. Authorizes the Administrator to make grants to States to fulfill requirements under this Act. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6] · D–NJ
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.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 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.3789 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.3789 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.3789 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.3789 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.