PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-439.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 3, 1994
Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Amendments Consent Act of 1994 - Conditions the consent of the Congress to amendments made by the States of Illinois and Kentucky to the Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact upon: (1) compliance with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act; and (2) its being granted only for so long as the regional commission established in the amended Compact complies fully with that Act. Declares that such consent shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL-20] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-439.
Became Public Law No: 103-439.
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 Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S15031)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S15031)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
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 H10623-10626)
Mr. Lehman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-816, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-816, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged.
Joint Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power and by the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Joint Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 15, 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.4814 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.4814 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.4814 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.4814 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.