PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 19, 2007
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage Contingent Cost Allocation Act - Declares that certain funds designated under provisions (commonly known as the Price-Anderson Act) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide indemnification shall be used to cover the contingent cost resulting from any nuclear incident for which such funds would be available to compensate for public liability (Price-Anderson incident).
States that certain funds made available to the United States under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage shall be used to satisfy public liability resulting from a Price-Anderson incident.
Requires participation by each nuclear supplier in a retrospective risk pooling program to cover the contingent cost resulting from a nuclear incident outside the United States that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress every five years on whether there is a need for continuation or amendment of this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1653 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 S.1653 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 S.1653 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 S.1653 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.