To ensure the protection of the coastal marine coral environment off the west coast of Puerto Rico by requiring the Director of the United States Geological Service to assess the environmental economic costs and benefits of relocating an existing wastewater treatment plant outfall to a deepwater location, and for other purposes.

Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 30, 1995

Requires the Director of the Geological Survey to study and map the marine environment of Anasco Bay, Puerto Rico, and the surrounding ocean area, to determine the feasibility of constructing a deepwater outfall for the treatment works at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Authorizes appropriations.

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.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rescom. Romero-Barcelo, Carlos A. [D-PR-At Large] · D–PR

Committees

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Natural Resources Committee

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

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

Apr 13, 1995
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Apr 3, 1995
Executive Comment Requested from Interior, Commerce.
Apr 3, 1995
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
Apr 3, 1995
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Mar 30, 1995
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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.
Mar 30, 1995
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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.
Mar 30, 1995
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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.
Mar 30, 1995
Introduced in House
Mar 30, 1995
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

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

Introduced in House · Mar 30, 1995 Formatted Text PDF

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: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

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.R.1371 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

Discuss H.R.1371, 104th Congress: To ensure the protection of the coastal marine coral environment off the west coast of Puerto Rico by requiring the Director of the United States Geological Service to assess the environmental economic costs and benefits of relocating an existing wastewater treatment plant outfall to a deepwater location, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/1371

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1995-03-30.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/104/bills/hr1371/BILLS-104hr1371ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:05:03Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.R.1371 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.1371 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

Discuss H.R.1371, 104th Congress: To ensure the protection of the coastal marine coral environment off the west coast of Puerto Rico by requiring the Director of the United States Geological Service to assess the environmental economic costs and benefits of relocating an existing wastewater treatment plant outfall to a deepwater location, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/1371

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1995-03-30.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/104/bills/hr1371/BILLS-104hr1371ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:05:03Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.1371 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.1371 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

Discuss H.R.1371, 104th Congress: To ensure the protection of the coastal marine coral environment off the west coast of Puerto Rico by requiring the Director of the United States Geological Service to assess the environmental economic costs and benefits of relocating an existing wastewater treatment plant outfall to a deepwater location, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/1371

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1995-03-30.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/104/bills/hr1371/BILLS-104hr1371ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:05:03Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.1371 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.1371 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

Discuss H.R.1371, 104th Congress: To ensure the protection of the coastal marine coral environment off the west coast of Puerto Rico by requiring the Director of the United States Geological Service to assess the environmental economic costs and benefits of relocating an existing wastewater treatment plant outfall to a deepwater location, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/1371

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1995-03-30.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/104/bills/hr1371/BILLS-104hr1371ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:05:03Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.1371 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.