PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Jun 29, 1993
International Fusion Energy Act of 1993 - Establishes the Office of the International Fusion Negotiator, whose head shall represent the United States in international negotiations regarding the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Directs the Secretary of Energy to redirect and refocus the Department of Energy (DOE) magnetic fusion program towards implementation of ITER, and a fusion demonstration reactor. Outlines ITER program requirements and management plan. Authorizes the Negotiator to enter into international agreements regarding ITER implementation and cost sharing. Requires the Negotiator to submit an annual status report to the Congress on such agreements. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett [D-LA] · D–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
Referred to the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights.
Referred jointly to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Referred jointly to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred jointly to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S8270-8272)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S8270-8272)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 100.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston with amendments. With written report No. 103-62. Additional views filed.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston with amendments. With written report No. 103-62. Additional views filed.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 103-104.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3653-3654)
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.646 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.646 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.646 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.646 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.