PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 240.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 2, 2001
Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001 - Amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to extend from 2002 to 2017 the indemnification authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Secretary of Energy with respect to certain licensees, Department of Energy (DOE) contractors, and nonprofit educational institutions, respectively.Increases the maximum amount of standard deferred premium that may be charged a licensee following a nuclear incident.Specifies the aggregate amount by which the Secretary must indemnify DOE contractors above the amount of financial protection required for each nuclear incident.Increases the indemnification limits for incidents outside the United States. Revises inflation adjustment provisions.Instructs the NRC to consider a combination of modular reactors at a single site, each of which has between 100,000 and 300,000 electrical kilowatts (but a combined rated capacity of no more than 950,000 kilowatts), as a single facility having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more.
People & committees
Rep. Wilson, Heather [R-NM-1] · R–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 240.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
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 H8358-8360)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8358-8360)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2983.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8358-8367)
Mr. Barton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 180.
Committee on Science discharged.
Committee on Science discharged.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Science for a period ending not later than Nov. 20, 2001 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(n), rule X.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 107-299, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 107-299, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
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: Apr 7, 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.2983 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.2983 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.2983 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.2983 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.