PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-32.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 27, 1999
Declares the portion of the James River and Kanawha Canal in Richmond, Virginia, between the Great Ship Lock on the east and the limits of the city of Richmond on the west, to be a non-navigable waterway of the United States for purposes of Federal vessel safety standards. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to provide such technical advice, information, and assistance as the city may request to insure that vessels operating on such waters are built, maintained, and operated in a manner consistent with protecting public safety. Allows the Secretary to terminate such declaration by publishing a determination that vessels operating on such waters have not been built, maintained, and operated in such a manner. Requires the Secretary, before making a determination, to: (1) consult with State and local officials regarding whether such a determination is necessary to protect public safety and will serve the public interest; and (2) provide to persons who might be adversely affected an opportunity for comment and a hearing.
People & committees
Rep. Bliley, Tom [R-VA-7] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-32.
Became Public Law No: 106-32.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6153)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6153)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 118.
Committee on Commerce. Reported to Senate by Senator McCain without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Commerce. Reported to Senate by Senator McCain without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Commerce. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2324)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2324)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1034.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2324-2326)
Mr. Shuster moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 60.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-107.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-107.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.1034 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.1034 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.1034 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.1034 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.