A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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 known as the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act. It updates the role and structure of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. The committee will consist of a maximum of 15 members with diverse technical backgrounds appointed by the Commission. Members generally serve up to two terms of four years each, though exceptions can be made for compelling need. The bill outlines specific duties for the committee, including reviewing safety studies, advising on hazards and safety standards, and focusing on unique or safety-significant issues. Finally, it allows the committee to decline reviewing license applications that do not raise issues warranting their review or contain unique, novel, or noteworthy matters.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires that committee reports on license applications be made part of the public record.
- Scored +4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill enhances reactor safety oversight by requiring the committee to focus on safety-significant and novel reactor designs.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
How the text last changed
Reported in House (11/5/2026), compared with Introduced in House. Each change is on the Text tab.
The newer version of the bill changes the duties, focus areas, and operational rules for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. It updates what the committee must review, alters the committee's authority to decline certain license application reviews, and re-letters several subsections to account for removed provisions. The changes outline specific criteria for committee actions, such as focusing on facility design instead of reactor design and prioritizing issues that are unique, novel, or noteworthy.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a), adding subsection (b) to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954: This provision ensures the committee consists of members representing a diverse background of technical expertise relevant to the mission of the Commission. This is a positive step because it brings a wide range of expert knowledge to reactor safety oversight.
-
Section 2(a), adding subsection (e) to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954: This provision directs the committee to focus on issues that directly relate to facility design, are safety significant, are unique, and have not been previously acted on. This could benefit the public by ensuring experts focus their time on the most important and novel safety matters.
-
Section 2(b), adding paragraph (2) to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954: This provision allows the committee to decline reviewing license applications if they determine the applications do not contain unique or noteworthy issues, or do not raise issues warranting their review. This might streamline the oversight process by allowing experts to avoid spending time on routine applications.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(b), adding paragraph (2) to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954: This provision gives the committee the ability to decline reviewing certain license applications if they decide the applications do not raise issues warranting review or lack unique issues. For the people, this could potentially mean less independent expert oversight on some nuclear reactor license applications if the committee chooses not to review them.
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 make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires that committee reports on license applications be made part of the public record.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill enhances reactor safety oversight by requiring the committee to focus on safety-significant and novel reactor designs.
Handed to a committee to examine
What changed from Engrossed 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.
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
The newer version of the bill changes the duties, focus areas, and operational rules for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. It updates what the committee must review, alters the committee's authority to decline certain license application reviews, and re-letters several subsections to account for removed provisions. The changes outline specific criteria for committee actions, such as focusing on facility design instead of reactor design and prioritizing issues that are unique, novel, or noteworthy.
Each change
- In Section 2, subsection (d)(1), the requirement to review applications and submit reports under section 182 b. was removed and replaced with a requirement to review safety studies and facility license applications referred to it and make reports thereon.
- In Section 2, subsection (d)(2), the requirement that the Commission specifically request advice was removed, and "respect" was changed to "regard".
- In Section 2, subsection (d)(2)(B), the word "and" was added at the end.
- In Section 2, subsection (d)(3), the word "specifically" before "request" was removed, and capitalization of "perform" and "Advise" was adjusted.
- In Section 2, subsection (e)(1), "reactor" was changed to "facility".
- In Section 2, subsection (e)(3), the terms "unique," and "or noteworthy;" were added.
- In Section 2, former subsection (g) regarding proposals from the committee was removed entirely.
- In Section 2, subsections (h), (i), and (j) were re-lettered as subsections (g), (h), and (i).
- In Section 2, subsection (b), the complete rewrite of Section 182 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was replaced with specific amendments allowing the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to decline to review certain applications if it determines they lack unique, novel, or noteworthy issues or do not raise issues warranting review.
Written by an AI model from a comparison of this version’s text with the one before it, not by a person. .
- 11/10/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 11/9/2026
- 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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6102-6103)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6102-6103)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9613.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6102-6104)
- Mr. Latta moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 11/5/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-877.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 774.
- 7/14/2026
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
- 7/9/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Craig GoldmanRepublican · Texas