PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 26, 2000
Amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to extend: (1) from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2007, the deadline for the Secretary of Energy to reimburse specified licensees for remedial action costs incurred at active uranium or thorium processing sites; and (2) from December 31, 2005, to July 31, 2008, the deadline for the Secretary to determine whether certain reimbursements exceed statutory limits.
People & committees
Sen. Nickles, Don [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7674)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7674)
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.2933 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.2933 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.2933 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.2933 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.