PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-255.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 12, 2000
Cross-Border Cooperation and Environmental Safety in Northern Europe Act of 2000 - Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the United States Northern Europe Initiative is a sound framework for future United States involvement in Northern Europe; (2) the European Union should move expeditiously to authorize and fund the proposed "Northern Dimension" Initiative at appropriate yet substantial levels of assistance; (3) the United States should continue to support a wide-ranging strengthening of democratic and civic institutions on a regional basis to provide a foundation for political stability and investment opportunities, including cross-border exchanges, in Northern Europe; (4) the United States should demonstrate continued commitment to address environmental security challenges in Northwest Russia, in cooperation with partners in the region; and (5) recently-elected Russian President Vladimir Putin should rapidly conclude pending nuclear waste management agreements to enable assistance programs to go forward.Allocates specified sums from previously authorized appropriations for assistance and related programs for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States for the United States Northern Europe Initiative projects relating to environmental cleanup, law enforcement, public health, energy, business and trade promotion.Instructs the Secretary of State to report to Congress on: (1) the threat to environmental security presented by Russian marine nuclear reactor, waste, and contamination; and (2) possibilities for expanded United States and multilateral assistance programs for environmental clean-up in Northwest Russia, including technical exchanges and private- public partnerships.
People & committees
Rep. Gejdenson, Sam [D-CT-2] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-255.
Became Public Law No: 106-255.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7282)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7282)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 649.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Helms without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Helms without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
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 H2983-2984)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2983-2984)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4249.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2983-2986)
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
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.4249 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.4249 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.4249 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.4249 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.