PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 27, 1994
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and within 180 days after the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a final maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act, to promulgate a regulation establishing a quality level for the contaminant in bottled water or make a finding that a regulation is not necessary to protect the public health because the contaminant is contained in public water systems. Provides that such regulation: (1) shall require that the quality level for the contaminant in bottled water be as stringent as the MCL published by the Administrator; and (2) may require that the quality level be more stringent if necessary to provide public health protection. Makes the MCL the bottled water quality level standard if the Secretary fails to promulgate the regulation as required.
People & committees
Rep. Bryant, John W. [D-TX-5] · D–TX
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 the Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1339)
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.4651 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.4651 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.4651 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.4651 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.