PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 24, 2000
Coastal Resources Enhancement and Restoration Act of 2000 - Amends the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to require not less than ten percent of amounts appropriated for grants for engineering research to be used by the National Science Foundation for grants for coastal engineering and coastline protection research.Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct a Federal agency found to have violated the Act in connection with the discharge or runoff of pollutants into U.S. coastal waters and ordered to undertake a supplemental environmental program in lieu of paying fines to be given the option of constructing artificial reefs and undertaking aquatic habitat restoration projects.Requires the Secretary of the Army, in determining which shores other than public will be eligible for Federal assistance for shore protection, to consider a publicly owned shore with insufficient public access to be a privately owned shore.Amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to allow a publicly owned shore with insufficient public access to be considered a privately owned shore for purposes of costs of constructing projects or measures for beach erosion control and water quality enhancement assigned to projects for flood control and other water resources purposes.Directs the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to carry out a comprehensive ocean observing system pilot program. Requires the establishment of two regional test projects, one of which shall be located at the Southern California Bight from Encinitas, Mexico, to Point Dume, California, with Orange County, California, serving as the focal point.Establishes a beach nourishment account in the Treasury to carry out: (1) such pilot program; and (2) projects for beach nourishment, shore protection, and beach erosion control.
People & committees
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA-45] · R–CA
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 Space and Aeronautics.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Basic Research.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Science, and Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Science, and Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Science, and Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Science, and Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Aug 20, 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.5535 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.5535 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.5535 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.5535 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.