PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 20, 1993
States that the eligibility to receive assistance under the levee rehabilitation assistance program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within an area that was affected by the Midwest flooding of 1993 shall not be affected by the status of participation (or lack of participation) of the public sponsor in the program. Provides application requirements of a public sponsor for such assistance, subject to specified conditions, including a 25 percent non-Federal share of program costs. Limits to $50 million the FY 1994 funding for the levee rehabilitation program.
People & committees
Rep. Danner, Pat [D-MO-6] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Mr. Applegate asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: 11/22/93 CR H10912)
Committee on Public Works + Transportation discharged.
Committee on Public Works + Transportation discharged.
Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.3583 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.3583 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.3583 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.3583 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.