PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5411-5412)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 19, 1993
Environmental Flexible Funding Act of 1993 - Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish an environmental medium grant program to authorize consolidated grants to States (in lieu of individual grants under Federal environmental laws) to fund programs relating to pollution prevention, control, and abatement and related environmental activities. Authorizes a State, in carrying out a consolidated grant program, to exercise the authorities it would otherwise exercise under an individual grant program. Requires grants to be awarded to address the pollution prevention, control, and abatement problems and related environmental problems of one area of environmental concern on a statewide basis in accordance with a priority work plan developed by the State. Limits a consolidated grant to the amount that would otherwise be awarded under individual grant program authorities. Requires States to pay 50 percent of program costs. Authorizes the Administrator to reduce or disapprove a grant based on a State's failure to make satisfactory progress in achieving performance measures. Directs the Administrator to establish a multi-media environmental grant program to assist States in designing and carrying out pollution prevention, control, and abatement programs and related environmental programs that affect two or more areas of environmental concern. Applies the same cost-sharing and progress conditions to such grants as are applicable to medium grants. Authorizes the Administrator, on the request of a State Governor, to transfer up to 20 percent of the amount that would otherwise be awarded to the State pursuant to individual grant authorities or grant authorities under this Act and award the funds as a supplemental amount subject to the same requirements of such grants.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5411-5412)
Star Print ordered on the bill.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S16433-16434)
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.1687 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.1687 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.1687 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.1687 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.