PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 30, 1999
Requires the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to study and report to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the toxicological effects of Radium 224 and the health effects of exposure to Radium 224 in drinking water. Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to include Radium 224 on the list of contaminants which may require regulation and be subject to a determination by the Administrator to regulate. Requires State source water assessment programs to be revised every five years after calendar year 1999. Makes such programs and revisions publicly available.
People & committees
Rep. Saxton, Jim [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ
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 Health and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1699)
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: Jun 3, 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 H.R.2665 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.2665 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.2665 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.2665 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.