PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from DOE.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 16, 1997
Instructs the Secretary of Energy to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study and report to the Congress on: (1) the extent and manner of plutonium migration from each test location at the Nevada Test Site; (2) the extent of its expected future migration; and (3) the potential for current and future human exposure and possible health risks to communities. Urges that such study consider: (1) all future potential routes of exposure, such as use of contaminated groundwater as drinking water; and (2) potential future trends in population growth over the next 1,000 years in the Nevada Test Site vicinity.
People & committees
Rep. Ensign, John [R-NV-1] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from DOE.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to House Commerce
Referred to the Committee on National Security, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House National Security
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: Jun 6, 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.2479 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.2479 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.2479 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.2479 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.