PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Received from USDA.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 11, 1993
Military Land Reform and Reassessment Act of 1993 - Amends the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to permit: (1) the military department of any State (currently, limited to Federal departments and agencies) to use, occupy, and develop public lands, subject to specified requirements; and (2) the use of public lands within the State by the military department of one or more States for military training, equipment testing, or other authorized military activities. Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) issue a general authorization for the military department of one or more States to use public lands for activities the Secretary finds are not likely to result in a significant degree of residual contamination of affected lands; (2) permit such use for activities that would result in a significant degree of residual contamination under specified circumstances; and (3) waive rental charges for the use of public land by a State military department for military training, equipment testing, and other authorized military activities. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) reporting requirements; and (2) reimbursement by the Secretary of Defense of a State military department for costs to such department incident to the use of lands by a State National Guard or by U.S. armed forces for specified purposes. Revises provisions with respect to authority over the interchange of lands. Sets forth provisions regarding the monitoring of, effect of, and restrictions on military aircraft overflights over nonmilitary public lands and lands managed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Defense to submit to the Congress an inventory of all public lands withdrawn for military purposes. Requires each future-years defense plan to include an identification of public lands whose withdrawal under the Engle Act is expected to be requested during the years covered by such plan. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the termination of military uses of withdrawn public lands; and (2) restrictions on use for military purposes of lands in the Orchard training area, Idaho.
People & committees
Rep. Vento, Bruce F. [D-MN-4] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Received from USDA.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1204)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Aug 26, 2025. 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 H.R.2080 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 H.R.2080 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 H.R.2080 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 H.R.2080 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.