PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 26, 1999
Amends the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 relating to processing site designations to: (1) direct the Secretary of Energy to designate the Atlas uranium milling site (Atlas Site) as a processing site; (2) delineate the statutory strictures applicable to such Site; (3) instruct the Attorney General to require the liable party to reimburse the United States for remedial action costs at the Site; and (4) set forth conditions under which the liable party is relieved of all further responsibility for remedial action costs. Authorizes the Secretary to sell lands and interests acquired in the Site, or to donate them to a Utah governmental entity for public purposes, after the removal of radioactive materials from both the Site and associated Colorado River flood plain.
People & committees
Rep. Cannon, Chris [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E766)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2276-2277)
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: Jan 15, 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 H.R.1559 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.1559 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.1559 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.1559 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.