PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Favorable Executive Comment Received from DOE.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 26, 1995
Requires the Secretary of Energy to transfer, without compensation, the Tatum Dome Test Site to the State of Mississippi after certification from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the State that any contamination of such property has been remedied in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. Subjects such transfer to retention by the United States of the following: (1) the subsurface estate below the depth of 2700 feet below sea level unless a lesser depth is agreed upon by the Secretary; (2) rights of access for monitoring wells for sampling; and (3) the right to install wells additional to those identified in the remediation plan to the extent deemed necessary by the Secretary to monitor potential pathways of contaminant migration.
People & committees
Rep. Taylor, Gene [D-MS-5] · D–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Favorable Executive Comment Received from DOE.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.
Executive Comment Requested from DOE.
Rereferred to the House Committee on National Security.
Mr. Stump asked unanimous consent to rerefer H.R. 2552 to the Committee on National Security. Agreed to without objection.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources. (Referral Suspended).
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.2552 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.2552 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.2552 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.2552 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.