A Republican bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 25 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act. It amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to change how hearings are handled for nuclear facility construction applications and licenses. The legislation allows the Commission to issue certain construction permits, operating licenses, and amendments without a hearing if no affected person requests one, provided there is a thirty-day notice and publication in the Federal Register. It also lets the Commission skip this thirty-day notice for certain amendments if it determines the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. Additionally, the bill requires the Commission to use informal adjudicatory procedures for hearings held under this subparagraph. Finally, these changes apply to all applications and proceedings pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on or after the date of enactment.
Yes
- Scored +2
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
Streamlining nuclear licensing processes may facilitate easier expansion of nuclear energy infrastructure.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill reduces due process by making hearings contingent upon a specific request rather than being a required part of the proceeding.
- Scored -3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill reduces transparency by allowing the Commission to dispense with certain notice and publication requirements for amendments.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a)(1)(B) allows the Commission to issue construction permits, operating licenses, and amendments without a hearing if no affected person requests one and after giving thirty days notice in the Federal Register. This could be considered positive because it removes unnecessary delays for approvals when no one objects.
-
Section 2(a)(1)(B) also allows the Commission to skip the thirty-day notice for certain permit or license amendments if it determines the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. This might be seen as beneficial by streamlining the process for safe, minor changes.
-
Section 2(a)(1)(B) requires the Commission to use informal adjudicatory procedures for any hearing it holds under this subparagraph. This could make the hearing process simpler and more straightforward for everyone involved.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a)(1)(B) permits the Commission to issue construction permits, operating licenses, and amendments without a hearing if no one requests one and after a thirty-day notice. This might be viewed as a negative burden if members of the public miss the notice and lose their chance to voice concerns through a formal hearing.
-
Section 2(a)(1)(B) allows the Commission to completely skip the thirty-day notice and publication period for certain amendments if it determines there are no significant hazards. This could be considered a negative outcome for public oversight because it reduces transparency and advance warning for specific license changes.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill reduces due process by making hearings contingent upon a specific request rather than being a required part of the proceeding. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill reduces transparency by allowing the Commission to dispense with certain notice and publication requirements for amendments.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Streamlining nuclear licensing processes may facilitate easier expansion of nuclear energy infrastructure.
The version one chamber actually passed
What changed from Reported in House: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
A committee approved it and sent it to the floor
What changed from Introduced in House: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
- 11/12/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 11/11/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6171)
- 11/9/2026
- At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Latta objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5549.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6097-6099; text: CR H6097)
- Mr. Latta moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 11/5/2026
- Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-872.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 769.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/9/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/29/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 6/23/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/12/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/31/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/24/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/21/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/6/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/30/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/23/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jake AuchinclossDemocrat · Massachusetts
Stephanie BiceRepublican · Oklahoma
Troy BaldersonRepublican · Ohio
Eric BurlisonRepublican · Missouri
Michael BaumgartnerRepublican · Washington
Ken CalvertRepublican · California
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
Gabe EvansRepublican · Colorado
Russ FulcherRepublican · Idaho
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Clay FullerRepublican · Georgia
Marie PerezDemocrat · Washington
Diana HarshbargerRepublican · Tennessee
Erin HouchinRepublican · Indiana
Pat HarriganRepublican · North Carolina
Thomas KeanRepublican · New Jersey
Tim MooreRepublican · North Carolina
Jay ObernolteRepublican · California
Robert OnderRepublican · Missouri
August PflugerRepublican · Texas
Victoria SpartzRepublican · Indiana
Kim SchrierDemocrat · Washington
Marc VeaseyDemocrat · Texas
Robert WittmanRepublican · Virginia
Roger WilliamsRepublican · Texas