PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 31, 1998
National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 1998 - Authorizes the oilheat industry to conduct a referendum through a qualified industry organization among retailers and wholesalers for the creation of a National Oilheat Research Alliance to develop programs concerning oilheat research and development, safety issues, consumer education, and training. Defines industry to include those persons involved in the production, transportation, and sale of oilheat, and in the manufacture and distribution of oilheat utilization equipment, in the United States (but not the ultimate consumers of oilheat). Permits State participation in such Alliance. Prescribes guidelines for Alliance membership and representation. Requires the Alliance to: (1) establish a program coordinating its operation with that of any similar State, local, or regional program; and (2) levy and collect annual assessments on the wholesale sale of No. 1 distillate and No. 2 dyed distillate sufficient to cover Alliance plans and program costs. Empowers the Alliance to bring suit in Federal court to compel compliance with any assessments it levies.
People & committees
Rep. Greenwood, James C. [R-PA-8] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10461-10464)
Mr. Schaefer, Dan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 447.
Committee on Science discharged.
Committee on Science discharged.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Science for a period ending not later than Oct. 7, 1998 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 Commerce. H. Rept. 105-787, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 105-787, 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.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
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.3610 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.3610 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.3610 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.3610 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.