PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 25, 1993
Local Innovation and Coastal Protection Act of 1993 - Amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to require the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to make grants ($500,000 maximum with matching fund requirements) from the Coastal Erosion Control Fund (established by this Act) to States and qualifying communities for an erosion mitigation demonstration program. Gives grant priority to projects that: (1) have multiple location applicability; (2) broaden existing erosion control techniques; or (3) rely on natural designs rather than structural alterations. Authorizes appropriations. Establishes in the Treasury the Coastal Erosion Control Fund. Requires the Director to: (1) assess an annual five-dollar flood insurance premium mitigation surcharge to be paid into such Fund, unless the Fund's balance exceeds $15 million; (2) evaluate and publish a list of the most effective erosion mitigation measures; and (3) provide flood insurance rate incentives for erosion mitigation efforts.
People & committees
Sen. Bradley, Bill [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6466-6467)
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: 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 S.1024 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.1024 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.1024 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.1024 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.