Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would exempt any rule pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards from the new onerous approval process created by the bill.
In other words, my amendment would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, to continue to issue rules under the current system, thereby making it easier to protect Americans from nuclear disaster.
Today's bill, in the name of so-called reform, adds new procedural hoops that agencies and departments must go through before regulation can be issued, including requiring a joint resolution of approval for every major rule.
The result is simply to impede, obstruct, and delay the attempt of government to accomplish one of its most basic functions: to protect the health and welfare of its citizens.
Not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public health, safety, and environment, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, oppose this bill.
According to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which represents a coalition of many such groups, this bill ``is nothing more than a back-door way to gut enforcement of existing legislation and future safeguards that big-money interests do not want. It would force Congress to refight its previous debates, wasting time and money, and paralyzing vital agency work.''
Americans should rightfully be scared that this bill will put their health and safety at risk. One example that highlights this fact is the subject of this amendment: nuclear power.
The risks and dangers of nuclear power were made all the more real by the nuclear disaster in Japan at Fukushima 4 years ago. We all watched in horror when that country was devastated by the earthquake and resulting tsunami.
That disaster then caused its own disaster: the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
That led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20-kilometer exclusion zone around the power plant, and the displacement of 156,000 people. Inside the evacuation zone all farming has been abandoned.
In 2011, Virginia was struck by a relatively rare, but strong, earthquake, felt up and down the eastern seaboard. It caused a nuclear power plant near the epicenter to have to go offline.
For me, this concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant, Indian Point, about which many people have had concerns for years, lies just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district.
There are 20 million people living within a 50-mile radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the basis for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster.
Indian Point also sits near two earthquake fault lines and, according to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage because of an earthquake.
To keep my constituents and, indeed, all Americans safe, I am offering this amendment today.
Because of the catastrophes that can result from disasters, be they natural or manmade, at nuclear power plants, prevention of meltdowns is the key.
Since Fukushima, the NRC has issued new rules designed to upgrade power plants to withstand severe events like earthquakes and to have enough backup power so as to avoid a meltdown for a significant length of time.
The NRC must have the ability and flexibility to issue new regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans.
However, H.R. 427 is intentionally designed so new and vital regulations will likely never be put in place. We cannot permit the NRC to never be able to create new regulations.
Therefore, I urge you to support the Nadler amendment to exempt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the onerous new requirements for rulemaking imposed by this bill. In that way, the NRC would have the ability to safeguard public health and safety, as it should.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill prohibits any major regulation from going into effect unless both the House and Senate pass and the President signs a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days.
If the President and the Congress fail to approve the regulation within the timeframe, it cannot take effect and a subsequent joint resolution for the same regulation cannot be considered for the remainder of the Congress.
Because of the unrealistic approval deadlines and the requirement that both Houses approve each and every major rule, as well as the President, this bill would effectively prevent the promulgation of many critical protections that ensure Americans' health, safety, and economic well-being.
The proponents say they support regulation when it makes sense. But this is a vast government. It is a vast economy. It is a vast socioeconomic system.
To demand that Congress pass in both Houses within 70 days and the President sign a resolution of approval for every one of the thousands of regulations means most will never be considered.
That is why this amendment, to say that at least where people's lives are at stake in large numbers, where safety regulations to prevent nuclear disasters or to mitigate their effects are in question, that it not be subject to the same restrictive requirements that this rule would put into place, which would say that most regulations would never get adequately considered.
In closing, I want to say that this amendment is absolutely necessary if we want to make sure that the next time there is an earthquake, God forbid, or some other disaster, or even just a power failure, that a nuclear reactor doesn't have a terrible situation, that we don't get a nuclear meltdown, and that if we do, regulations are in place to safeguard people's lives and health.
I think if we are going to pass this terrible bill, the least we can do is exempt nuclear safety from it. I urge all Members to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source