PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Readiness.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 16, 2006
Hawaiian Waters Chemical Munitions Safety Act of 2006 - Directs the Secretary of the Army to: (1) conduct a survey of all Hawaiian underwater sites where chemical munitions are known to have been disposed of by the Armed Forces between 1941 and 1972; and (2) identify on Hawaiian coastal nautical charts and other navigational materials navigational hazards to private activities and commercial shipping or fishing operations as identified in the survey. Requires the Secretary to implement appropriate monitoring mechanisms to recognize and track the potential release of hazardous chemical agents into the marine environment from such disposal sites.
Directs the Secretary to establish a program to conduct research and provide research grants to study the long-term effects of seawater exposure on chemical munitions, including the potential public health risks associated with, and the environmental impact of, ocean disposal of chemical munitions. Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the feasibility and cost of implementing multiple remediation measures at the disposal sites covered by the survey, including an analysis of the public health and environmental safety risks of such sites.
People & committees
Rep. Abercrombie, Neil [D-HI-1] · D–HI
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 Readiness.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.4778 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.4778 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.4778 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.4778 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.