Jennifer Kiggans (R-VA)
Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act. It aims to make sure Federal beaches and swimming areas have enough staff. If the Secretary of the Interior finds a staffing shortage at a designated swim location, the Secretary can make an agreement with local government agencies. This agreement lets local lifeguards work at the Federal swim locations during normal seasonal hours. These local agencies must be reimbursed for all reasonable costs they incur.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Increases safety for children swimming at federal beaches through consistent lifeguard presence.
- Scored +5
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Improves safety for young adults using federal swimming areas.
- Scored +5
Would people in middle age be better off under this?
Improves safety for middle-aged adults using federal swimming areas.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) allows the Secretary to partner with local government agencies so that local lifeguards can adequately staff designated swim locations during normal seasonal operating hours and ensure visitor safety. This is positive because it helps keep beaches monitored and safe for the public even when there are federal staffing shortages.
-
Section 2(b) requires the Secretary to ensure that local government agencies providing lifeguard services are reimbursed for all reasonable costs they incur. This is positive because local taxpayers will not be left footing the bill for protecting visitors at Federal swim locations.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based strictly on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that create negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Increases safety for children swimming at federal beaches through consistent lifeguard presence. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improves safety for middle-aged adults using federal swimming areas. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Improves safety for seniors using federal swimming areas. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves safety for young adults using federal swimming areas.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Enhances the management of federal lands and waters by ensuring safety staffing at designated swim locations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Empowers local government agencies to provide essential services on federal land with guaranteed reimbursement.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Improves immediate access to first aid and emergency rescue services at federal beaches.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — May increase the utilization of local government lifeguard employment through federal agreements.
- 9/15/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 9/14/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5563)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5063.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5563-5564)
- Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 8/27/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-772.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 673.
- 7/22/2026
- Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
- 12/2/2025
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 11/25/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
- 8/29/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House