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 · Jun 24, 1993
Environmental Justice Act of 1993 - Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish a list, in rank order, of the total weight of toxic chemicals released in each county or other geographic unit in the most recent five-year period for which data are available. Designates the 100 counties with the highest total releases as Environmental High Impact Areas. Requires the publication of such list every five years. Directs the Administrator and the Secretary of Labor to conduct compliance inspections of all toxic chemical facilities in such Areas at least every two years. Delegates such authority to States or Indian tribes authorized to administer Federal laws regulating toxic chemicals. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a report identifying the nature and extent of acute and chronic health impacts in such Areas from exposure to toxic chemicals as compared to other counties. Directs the President, if the report identifies significant adverse impacts, to report proposed administrative and legislative changes to the Congress to remedy and prevent such impacts. Includes within such remedies: (1) expansion of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 to include additional facilities or chemicals or reduced quantities of chemicals triggering reporting requirements; (2) the regulation of toxic chemicals not subject to Federal law based on a statutory or administrative exemption; and (3) the imposition of additional regulatory measures for toxic chemical facilities in such Areas. Requires the Administrator, if the report identifies significant adverse impacts, to promulgate regulations applicable to any Federal permit for construction or modification of a toxic chemical facility to require a net reduction in the release of a chemical determined to cause adverse health impacts in such an Area. Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to individuals who may be threatened by toxic chemical releases in such Areas to: (1) facilitate access to the public participation process under this and other Acts; and (2) be used to obtain technical assistance relating to inspection and review authorities.
People & committees
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT] · D–MT
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 S8107, S8109)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.1161 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.1161 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.1161 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.1161 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.