PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 24, 1993
Clean Water Act Research Amendments of 1993 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to revise the authorized activities of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to water pollution control and investigations. Establishes a National Water Quality Research Committee to advise the Administrator on research activities. Requires the Committee to report annually to the Congress on: (1) research conducted in the preceding year; (2) highest priority research needs for the following five-year period; (3) planned research activities; and (4) opportunities to coordinate Federal and State research. Establishes a Water Quality Monitoring Council to ensure the coordination of Federal and State surface and groundwater quality monitoring programs. Directs the Administrator to conduct a program of research and development of methods for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution. Requires the Administrator to: (1) conduct a national survey of data regarding bottom sediment contamination; and (2) conduct a program of research and development of methods for improved remediation and control of pollution problems resulting from contaminated sediments. Directs the Administrator to conduct a program of research and investigation concerning groundwater quality. Requires the Administrator to: (1) conduct a program of research and development to improve understanding of the status and trends of ecosystems and to develop improved predictive models upon which to base standardized protocols; and (2) issue protocols based on such program for use by States in conducting water quality assessments. Directs the Administrator to conduct a research technology development and demonstration program to identify and demonstrate cost-effective preventive measures for sources of pollution in complex watersheds having a mix of land use types. Requires the Adminstrator to conduct a basic research, development, and demonstration program for wetlands. Revises provisions concerning grants for research and development to require the Administrator to establish a grant program to demonstrate practices for the prevention and control of industrial and municipal sources of water pollution. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Morella, Constance A. [R-MD-8] · R–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1059-1060)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology, Environment and Aviation.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.
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.1116 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.1116 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.1116 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.1116 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.