Preventing Our Federal Building Workers and Visitors From Exposure to Deadly Smoke (PRO-FEDS) Act of 1993
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S14742)
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 28, 1993
Preventing Our Federal Building Workers and Visitors From Exposure to Deadly Smoke (PRO-FEDS) Act of 1993 - Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue guidelines for enforcing a nonsmoking policy at Federal agencies. Requires such policy, at a minimum, to prohibit smoking in each portion of a Federal building that is not ventilated separately. Directs the heads of Federal agencies, the Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, and specified entities of the legislative branch to adopt such a nonsmoking policy. Authorizes agencies to petition for a waiver from the general requirements if extenuating circumstances prevent enforcement and such agencies make a good-faith effort to enforce an alternative policy that will protect individuals from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Requires Federal agencies in which a labor organization has been accorded bargaining unit recognition to engage in collective bargaining to ensure implementation of requirements that affect work areas predominantly occupied by the organization's members. Exempts such work areas from the nonsmoking policy if the bargaining unit and the Federal agency have a collective bargaining agreement that includes provisions relating to smoking privileges that are in violation of this Act's requirements. Terminates such exemption on the earlier of the first expiration date of the agreement or one year after the date of issuance of the guidelines. Directs the Administrator and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide technical assistance to Federal agencies and other persons who request it. Requires the Administrator to: (1) establish an outreach program informing the public of the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke; (2) establish an Environmental Tobacco Smoke Advisory Office within the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air; and (3) report to the Congress on compliance with this Act and an assessment of the legal status of smoking in public places.
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
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 S.262 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 S.262 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 S.262 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 S.262 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.