PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 27, 1993
Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to review all projects concerning underground injection wells referred by Federal agencies to determine if they may contaminate any sole or principal drinking water source aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant public health hazard. Requires Federal agencies to: (1) designate officials to be responsible for compliance with project requirements; and (2) forward to the Administrator, before financial assistance is committed, a description of each project, an assessment of whether the project poses a risk to the sole source aquifer concern, and documentation supporting assessment.
People & committees
Rep. Gonzalez, Henry B. [D-TX-20] · 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 E203-204)
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.650 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.650 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.650 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.650 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.