PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4165)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 9, 2002
Requires the Secretary of Energy, if the State of South Carolina acts to delay or restrict, or seeks or enforces a judgment to prohibit, the shipment of special nuclear materials (including weapons grade plutonium) to the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, for processing by the proposed mixed-oxide fuel fabrication facility at such Site, to: (1) reopen the Record of Decision on such facility to identify and evaluate alternative locations; and (2) conduct a study of the costs and implications for U.S. national security of converting the Site to an environmental management closure site and transferring all current and proposed national security activities at the Site to other facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy.States that if the Secretary and the State enter into an agreement regarding the shipment of special nuclear materials to the Site for processing, the requirements of this Act shall not go into effect.
People & committees
Sen. Allard, Wayne [R-CO] · R–CO
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 Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4165)
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: Jan 14, 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 S.2501 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.2501 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.2501 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.2501 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.