PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 4, 1993
Land and Water Conservation Fund Amendments of 1993 - Amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to require the submission with the annual budget of the United States of a comprehensive statement of the estimated requirements during the ensuing fiscal year for appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition by eligible Federal agencies and by States and local governments. Sets forth requirements with respect to: (1) allocations from the Fund, including funds for Indian tribes and Alaska Native Village Corporations; and (2) multipurpose acquisition by States. Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to States for outdoor recreation maintenance and security. Repeals a restriction on assistance to enclose or shelter facilities used for outdoor recreation activities. Permits the use of funds, subject to limitations, for: (1) maintenance of facilities acquired and developed with financial assistance provided pursuant to the Act; (2) costs of law enforcement and security measures; and (3) development of sheltered facilities for public health or safety in connection with projects otherwise eligible for assistance under the Act. Authorizes the transfer of funds by grant recipients to private nonprofit organizations, subject to specified requirements, to be used for projects approved in writing by the grantor of the funds in connection with the acquisition of lands (or interests in lands) and the development of recreation facilities, but not for administrative expenses. Sets forth requirements regarding maintenance of expenditures by State and Federal grant recipients.
People & committees
Sen. DeConcini, Dennis [D-AZ] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1403-1404)
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: 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.322 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.322 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.322 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.322 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.