PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 12, 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
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7816-7817)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1950 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 S.1950 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 S.1950 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 S.1950 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.