PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 30, 1993
Federal Facilities Community Oversight for Public Health Act of 1993 - Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to establish a citizens advisory board at each Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facility to evaluate: (1) DOE environmental restoration and waste management activities at each facility; (2) the exercise of regulatory authority over such facilities by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State environmental agencies; and (3) Federal regulatory decisions on environmental restoration and waste managment activities. Sets forth the board's oversight functions for environmental and waste management activities. Prescribes guidelines under which Federal and State agencies shall provide the board with specified information regarding environmental restoration and waste management activities at the facilities. Directs the Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to perform: (1) public health actions for each facility included in certain DOE programmatic environmental impact statements; and (2) an off-site preliminary exposure assessment for each facility in order to identify potential human exposure to contaminants released from hazardous substances at the facility. Permits any person to petition the ATSDR Administrator for public health assessments. Directs the Secretary of Energy and the ATSDR Administrator to develop a long-range strategy for ensuring the substantive involvement of affected States, Indian tribes, communities, and the public in implementing this Act. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Richardson, Bill [D-NM-3] · D–NM
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 Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Executive Comment Requested from DOE.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1681)
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 26, 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.2572 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.2572 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.2572 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.2572 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.