PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 21, 1993
District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 Amendments of 1993 - Amends the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 to authorize the District of Columbia to use the specified portion of lands adjacent to the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium to construct, maintain, and operate a new stadium or any replacement thereof for not to exceed 99 years. Prohibits use of the new stadium from being limited by the seating capacity, cost, and other provisions in such Act. States that nothing in such Act, in any lease or deed executed pursuant to it, or in this Act shall be construed to limit the authority or ability of the District to sublease or otherwise encumber such lands to a third party, either public or private, for any use consistent with the use and term authorized by this Act. Provides that, with the exception of those lands used by the District for the new stadium, use of the lands leased to the District for stadium and stadium parking lots purposes shall continue. Extends the term of such authorized use for not to exceed 99 years. Leases specified lands to the District for overflow parking for not to exceed 2,000 automobiles only when all other stadium striped parking spaces are filled to capacity. Requires the use of such lands under reasonable terms and conditions necessary to ensure that they are maintained as grassed park land suitable for public recreational uses. Vests responsibility and authority exclusively in the District for construction, maintenance, naming, and operation of the new stadium and parking lots. Authorizes the District to assign such responsibility and authority to a third party, either public or private. Prohibits the National Park Service from being responsible for construction, maintenance, naming, or operation of the new stadium or parking lots or any costs arising therefrom. Authorizes construction of such stadium if its design has been reviewed by the Commission of Fine Arts and reviewed and approved by the National Capital Planning Commission. Prohibits the District from allowing the new stadium to be used by any person or organization exploiting any racial or ethnic group or using nomencloture that includes a reference to real or alleged physical characteristics or Native Americans or other groups of human beings.
People & committees
Del. Faleomavaega, Eni F. H. [D-AS-At Large] · D–AS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Operations and Metropolitan Affairs.
Referred jointly to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Referred jointly to the House Committee on District of Columbia.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.2702 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.2702 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.2702 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.2702 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.