PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 3, 1998
Instructs the Secretary of Energy to establish an Office of River Protection at the Hanford Reservation, Richland, Washington, headed by a senior Department of Energy (DOE) official responsible for managing all aspects of the Tank Waste Remediation System (Hanford Tank Farm operations), including those portions under privatization contracts. Makes the Office responsible for developing an integrated management plan for all aspects of the Tank Farm operations. Directs the Secretary to: (1) submit such integrated management plan to certain congressional committees within 90 days after enactment of this Act; and (2) report to the Congress on the success of Office and Tank Farm operations in improving the DOE management structure after such Office has been in operation for two years.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to House National Security
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on National Security, 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 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: 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.3984 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.3984 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.3984 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.3984 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.