PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.4668 / 103rd Congress

Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1994

Executive Comment Requested from DOT, EPA.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 28, 1994

Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1994 - Amends the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to authorize the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to issue a certificate attesting to the adequacy of garbage reception facilities at a port or terminal only if an onsite inspection has been conducted prior to the issuance of a certificate. Makes such certificates valid for a period of five years unless there is a change of operator. Directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations that require the operators of ports or terminals subject to MARPOL Protocol (the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973) requirements relating to reception facilities to post placards stating that users should report facility inadequacies to the Secretary. Requires all vessels to display placards and conduct briefings that notify the crew and passengers of requirements of Annex V of the Convention. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to refuse or revoke certain permits to proceed or depart of foreign vessels in violation of MARPOL requirements. Provides for a toll-free telephone number for reporting MARPOL violations. Amends the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 to express the sense of the Congress that certain shipper insurance policies should not provide for the payment of penalties under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Requires persons in charge of vessels to include information on the disposal of onboard waste in the notice of arrival to the port. Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a Marine Debris Coordinating Committee. Amends the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to extend authorized appropriations for regional marine research programs from FY 1996 through FY 2000.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Hughes, William J. [D-NJ-2] · D–NJ

Committees

  • Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Executive Comment Requested from DOT, EPA.

  2. Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation.

  3. Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources.

  4. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1364)

  5. Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

  6. Introduced in House

  7. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

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.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.4668 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.4668 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.4668 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.4668 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.

View full prompt & sources