PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 21, 1993
Environmental Risk Reduction Act of 1993 - Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to use resources pursuant to environmental laws to reduce risks to human health and welfare and ecological resources through the assessment and ranking of relative risks and options for their management. Requires the Administrator to establish: (1) a Committee on Relative Risks to provide advice on ranking the relative risks of stressors to human health and welfare and ecological resources; and (2) a Committee on Environmental Benefits to provide advice on estimating quantitative benefits of reducing risks. Authorizes appropriations. Directs the Administrator to: (1) protect human health and the environment by using careful risk assessments and evaluation of options for reducing risks; and (2) develop and revise, as necessary, guidelines to ensure consistency and technical quality in risk assessments by specifying minimum standards for risk assessment approaches. Requires the Administrator to conduct a core environmental risk assessment research program to insure that the risk assessment process is based on adequate environmental data and scientific understanding. Requires at least half of research conducted under this Act to be under agreements with universities or not-for-profit organizations. Authorizes appropriations. Establishes an Interagency Panel on Risk Assessment and Reduction for purposes of coordinating Federal research, data gathering, and implementation of environmental risk assessment and risk reduction activities. Directs the Administrator to report to the Congress on: (1) a prioritized list of the human health and welfare and ecological resource risks considered by the Committee on Relative Risks; (2) public awareness of the likelihood, seriousness, magnitude, and irreversibility of each risk; (3) alternative options for reducing risks and estimated costs and benefits to society; (4) the time required for reducing risks through each option; (5) evaluation of the uncertainty associated with aspects of the assessment process; and (6) research or data collection that would reduce such uncertainty. Provides for biennial updates of such report.
People & committees
Sen. Moynihan, Daniel Patrick [D-NY] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S549-550)
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 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 S.110 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 S.110 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 S.110 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 S.110 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.