PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.Con.Res.113 / 105th Congress

Expressing the sense of Congress about the Food and Drug Administration proposal to designate the use of chlorofluorocarbons in metered-dose inhalers as non-essential.

Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 9, 1997

Expresses the sense of the Congress that: (1) a specified proposed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation to designate the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) as nonessential so as to make MDIs using CFCs adulterated devices puts at risk the health of millions of asthma patients and does not contribute measurably to protection of the environment; and (2) the FDA should withdraw its proposal and focus its efforts on implementing existing Montreal Protocol decisions that will facilitate a transition to CFC-free MDIs by 2005.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Stearns, Cliff [R-FL-6] · R–FL

Committees

  • Energy and Commerce Committee
2 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

  2. Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.

  3. Introduced in House

  4. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jun 3, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.Con.Res.113 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Con.Res.113 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Con.Res.113 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Con.Res.113 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.

View full prompt & sources