PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 1, 1994
River Bottom Lands Revitalization Act - Appropriates an additional $50 million to repair damage from the 1993 Midwestern floods via the wetlands reserve program established under the Food Security Act of 1985. 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 such flooding 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 amount of the FY 1994 funding for the levee rehabilitation program that may be used to provide assistance to public sponsors who become eligible to receive assistance under such program as a result of this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Bond, Christopher S. [R-MO] · R–MO
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 Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S527-528)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1813 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.1813 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.1813 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.1813 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.