[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 158 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H8789-H8792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               NUCLEAR UTILIZATION OF KEYNOTE ENERGY ACT

  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1320) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 
related to Nuclear Regulatory Commission user fees and annual charges, 
and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1320

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Utilization of 
     Keynote Energy Act''.

     SEC. 2. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USER FEES AND ANNUAL 
                   CHARGES THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2020.

       (a) In General.--Section 6101(c)(2)(A) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214(c)(2)(A)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) amounts appropriated to the Commission for the fiscal 
     year for activities related to the development of a 
     regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor 
     technologies (which may not exceed $10,300,000).''.
       (b) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2020, section 6101 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 3. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USER FEES AND ANNUAL 
                   CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND EACH FISCAL 
                   YEAR THEREAFTER.

       (a) Annual Budget Justification.--
       (1) In general.--In the annual budget justification 
     submitted by the Commission to Congress, the Commission shall 
     expressly identify anticipated expenditures necessary for 
     completion of the requested activities of the Commission 
     anticipated to occur during the applicable fiscal year.
       (2) Restriction.--The Commission shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, use any funds made available to the 
     Commission for a fiscal year for the anticipated expenditures 
     identified under paragraph (1) for the fiscal year.
       (3) Limitation on corporate support costs.--With respect to 
     the annual budget justification submitted to Congress, 
     corporate support costs, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     shall not exceed the following percentages of the total 
     budget authority of the Commission requested in the annual 
     budget justification:
       (A) 30 percent for each of fiscal years 2021 and 2022.
       (B) 29 percent for each of fiscal years 2023 and 2024.
       (C) 28 percent for fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       (b) Fees and Charges.--
       (1) Annual assessment.--
       (A) In general.--Each fiscal year, the Commission shall 
     assess and collect fees and charges in accordance with 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) in a manner that ensures that, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, the amount assessed and collected 
     is equal to an amount that approximates--
       (i) the total budget authority of the Commission for that 
     fiscal year; less
       (ii) the budget authority of the Commission for the 
     activities described in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Excluded activities described.--The activities referred 
     to in subparagraph (A)(ii) are the following:
       (i) Any fee-relief activity, as identified by the 
     Commission.
       (ii) Amounts appropriated for the fiscal year to the 
     Commission--

       (I) from the Nuclear Waste Fund established under section 
     302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 
     10222(c));
       (II) for implementation of section 3116 of the Ronald W. 
     Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2005 (50 U.S.C. 2601 note; Public Law 108-375);
       (III) for the homeland security activities of the 
     Commission (other than for the costs of fingerprinting and 
     background checks required under section 149 of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2169) and the costs of 
     conducting security inspections);
       (IV) for the Inspector General services of the Commission 
     provided to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board;
       (V) for the partnership program with institutions of higher 
     education established under section 244 of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2015c); and
       (VI) for the scholarship and fellowship programs under 
     section 243 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2015b).

       (iii) Costs for activities related to the development of 
     regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor 
     technologies (which may not exceed $10,300,000).
       (C) Exception.--The exclusion described in subparagraph 
     (B)(iii) shall cease to be effective on January 1, 2026.
       (D) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2023, the 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations 
     and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a 
     report describing the views of the Commission on the 
     continued appropriateness and necessity of funding for the 
     activities described in subparagraph (B)(iii).
       (2) Fees for service or thing of value.--In accordance with 
     section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, the Commission 
     shall assess and collect fees from any person who receives a 
     service or thing of value from the Commission to cover the 
     costs to the Commission of providing the service or thing of 
     value.
       (3) Annual charges.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and except as 
     provided in subparagraph (D), the Commission may charge to 
     any licensee or certificate holder of the Commission an 
     annual charge in addition to the fees set forth in paragraph 
     (2).
       (B) Cap on annual charges of certain licensees.--
       (i) Operating reactors.--The annual charge under 
     subparagraph (A) charged to an operating reactor licensee, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, shall not exceed the annual 
     fee amount per operating reactor licensee established in the 
     final rule of the Commission entitled ``Revision of Fee 
     Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015'' (80 Fed. Reg. 
     37432 (June 30, 2015)), as may be adjusted annually by the 
     Commission to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index 
     published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department 
     of Labor.
       (ii) Fuel facilities.--

       (I) In general.--The total annual charges under 
     subparagraph (A) charged to fuel facility licensees, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, shall not exceed an amount that 
     is equal to the total annual fees collected from the fuel 
     facilities class under the final rule of the Commission 
     entitled ``Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal 
     Year 2016'' (81 Fed Reg. 41171 (June 24, 2016)), which amount 
     may be adjusted annually by the Commission to reflect changes 
     in the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics of the Department of Labor.
       (II) Exception.--Subclause (I) shall not apply if the 
     number of licensed facilities classified by the Commission as 
     fuel facilities exceeds seven.
       (III) Changes to annual charges.--Any change in an annual 
     charge under subparagraph (A) charged to a fuel facility 
     licensee shall be based on--

       (aa) a change in the regulatory services provided with 
     respect to the fuel facility; or
       (bb) an adjustment described in subclause (I).
       (iii) Waiver.--The Commission may waive, for a period of 1 
     year, the cap on annual charges described in clause (i) or 
     (ii) if the Commission submits to the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives a written determination that the cap on 
     annual charges may compromise the safety and security mission 
     of the Commission.
       (C) Amount per licensee.--
       (i) In general.--The Commission shall establish by rule a 
     schedule of annual charges fairly and equitably allocating 
     the aggregate amount of charges described in clause (ii) 
     among licensees and certificate holders.
       (ii) Aggregate amount.--For purposes of this subparagraph, 
     the aggregate amount of charges for a fiscal year shall equal 
     an amount that approximates--

       (I) the amount to be collected under paragraph (1)(A) for 
     the fiscal year; less
       (II) the amount of fees to be collected under paragraph (2) 
     for the fiscal year.

       (iii) Requirement.--The schedule of charges under clause 
     (i)--

       (I) to the maximum extent practicable, shall be reasonably 
     related to the cost of providing regulatory services; and
       (II) may be based on the allocation of the resources of the 
     Commission among licensees or certificate holders or classes 
     of licensees or certificate holders.

       (D) Exemption.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the 
     holder of any license for a federally owned research reactor 
     used primarily for educational training and academic research 
     purposes.
       (c) Performance and Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall develop for the 
     requested activities of the Commission--

[[Page H8790]]

       (A) performance metrics; and
       (B) milestone schedules.
       (2) Delays in issuance of final safety evaluation.--If the 
     final safety evaluation for a requested activity of the 
     Commission is not completed by the completion date required 
     by the performance metrics or milestone schedule under 
     paragraph (1), the Executive Director for Operations of the 
     Commission shall, not later than 30 days after such required 
     completion date, inform the Commission of the delay.
       (3) Delays in issuance of final safety evaluation exceeding 
     180 days.--If a final safety evaluation described in 
     paragraph (2) is not completed by the date that is 180 days 
     after the completion date required by the performance metrics 
     or milestone schedule under paragraph (1), the Commission 
     shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
     House of Representatives a timely report describing the 
     delay, including a detailed explanation accounting for the 
     delay and a plan for timely completion of the final safety 
     evaluation.
       (d) Accurate Invoicing.--With respect to invoices for fees 
     charged under subsection (b)(2), the Commission shall--
       (1) ensure appropriate review and approval prior to the 
     issuance of invoices;
       (2) develop and implement processes to audit invoices to 
     ensure accuracy, transparency, and fairness; and
       (3) modify regulations to ensure fair and appropriate 
     processes to provide licensees and applicants an opportunity 
     to efficiently dispute or otherwise seek review and 
     correction of errors in invoices for such fees.
       (e) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2022, the 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations 
     and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a 
     report describing the implementation of this section, 
     including any effects of such implementation and 
     recommendations for improvement.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Advanced nuclear reactor.--The term ``advanced nuclear 
     reactor'' means a nuclear fission or fusion reactor, 
     including a prototype plant (as defined in sections 50.2 and 
     52.1 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations), with 
     significant improvements compared to commercial nuclear 
     reactors under construction as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, including improvements such as--
       (A) additional inherent safety features;
       (B) significantly lower levelized cost of electricity;
       (C) lower waste yields;
       (D) greater fuel utilization;
       (E) enhanced reliability;
       (F) increased proliferation resistance;
       (G) increased thermal efficiency; or
       (H) ability to integrate into electric and nonelectric 
     applications.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission.
       (3) Corporate support costs.--The term ``corporate support 
     costs'' means expenditures for acquisitions, administrative 
     services, financial management, human resource management, 
     information management, information technology, policy 
     support, outreach, and training.
       (4) Research reactor.--The term ``research reactor'' means 
     a nuclear reactor that--
       (A) is licensed by the Commission under section 104 c. of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2134(c)) for 
     operation at a thermal power level of not more than 10 
     megawatts; and
       (B) if so licensed for operation at a thermal power level 
     of more than 1 megawatt, does not contain--
       (i) a circulating loop through the core in which the 
     licensee conducts fuel experiments;
       (ii) a liquid fuel loading; or
       (iii) an experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 
     square inches in cross-section.
       (5) Requested activity of the commission.--The term 
     ``requested activity of the Commission'' means--
       (A) the processing of applications for--
       (i) design certifications or approvals;
       (ii) licenses;
       (iii) permits;
       (iv) license amendments;
       (v) license renewals;
       (vi) certificates of compliance; and
       (vii) power uprates; and
       (B) any other activity requested by a licensee or 
     applicant.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on October 
     1, 2020.

     SEC. 4. STUDY ON ELIMINATION OF FOREIGN LICENSING 
                   RESTRICTIONS.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit to Congress 
     a report containing the results of a study on the feasibility 
     and implications of repealing restrictions under sections 103 
     d. and 104 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2133(d); 2134(d)) on issuing licenses for certain nuclear 
     facilities to an alien or an entity owned, controlled, or 
     dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign 
     government.

     SEC. 5. STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF THE ELIMINATION OF MANDATORY 
                   HEARING FOR UNCONTESTED LICENSING APPLICATIONS.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit to Congress 
     a report containing the results of a study on the effects of 
     eliminating the hearings required under section 189 a. of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2239(a)) for an 
     application under section 103 or section 104 b. of such Act 
     for a construction permit for a facility in the absence of a 
     request of any person whose interest may be affected by the 
     proceeding.

     SEC. 6. INFORMAL HEARING PROCEDURES.

       Section 189 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2239(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Commission may use informal adjudicatory 
     procedures for any hearing required under this section for 
     which the Commission determines that adjudicatory procedures 
     under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, are 
     unnecessary.''.

     SEC. 7. APPLICATION REVIEWS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY PROJECTS.

       Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2235) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``c. Application Reviews for Nuclear Energy Projects.--
       ``(1) Streamlining license application review.--With 
     respect to an application that is docketed seeking issuance 
     of a construction permit, operating license, or combined 
     construction permit and operating license for a production or 
     utilization facility, the Commission shall include the 
     following procedures:
       ``(A) Undertake an environmental review process and issue 
     any draft environmental impact statement to the maximum 
     extent practicable within 24 months after the application is 
     accepted for docketing.
       ``(B) Complete the technical review process and issue any 
     safety evaluation report and any final environmental impact 
     statement to the maximum extent practicable within 42 months 
     after the application is accepted for docketing.
       ``(2) Early site permit.--
       ``(A) Supplemental environmental impact statement.--In a 
     proceeding for a combined construction permit and operating 
     license for a site for which an early site permit has been 
     issued, any environmental impact statement prepared by the 
     Commission and cooperating agencies shall be prepared as a 
     supplement to the environmental impact statement prepared for 
     the early site permit.
       ``(B) Incorporation by reference.--The supplemental 
     environmental impact statement shall--
       ``(i) incorporate by reference the analysis, findings, and 
     conclusions from the environmental impact statement prepared 
     for the early site permit; and
       ``(ii) include additional discussion, analyses, findings, 
     and conclusions on matters resolved in the early site permit 
     proceeding only to the extent necessary to address 
     information that is new and significant in that the 
     information would materially change the prior findings or 
     conclusions.
       ``(3) Production or utilization facility located at an 
     existing site.--In reviewing an application for an early site 
     permit, construction permit, operating license, or combined 
     construction permit and operating license for a production or 
     utilization facility located at the site of a licensed 
     production or utilization facility, the Commission shall, to 
     the extent practicable, use information that was part of the 
     licensing basis of the licensed production or utilization 
     facility.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Commission shall initiate a 
     rulemaking, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of the Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Act, to amend 
     the regulations of the Commission to implement this 
     subsection.
       ``(5) Environmental impact statement defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `environmental impact statement' means a 
     detailed statement required under section 102(C) of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4332(C)).
       ``(6) Relationship to other law.--Nothing in this 
     subsection exempts the Commission from any requirement for 
     full compliance with section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).''.

     SEC. 8. REPORT IDENTIFYING BEST PRACTICES FOR ESTABLISHMENT 
                   AND OPERATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITY ADVISORY 
                   BOARDS.

       (a) Best Practices Report.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission shall submit to Congress, and make publicly 
     available, a report identifying best practices with respect 
     to the establishment and operation of a local community 
     advisory board to foster communication and information 
     exchange between a licensee planning for and involved in 
     decommissioning activities and members of the community that 
     decommissioning activities may affect, including lessons 
     learned from any such board in existence before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Contents.--The report described in subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of--
       (A) the topics that could be brought before a local 
     community advisory board;
       (B) how such a board's input could be used to inform the 
     decision-making processes of stakeholders for various 
     decommissioning activities;
       (C) what interaction such a board could have with the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other Federal regulatory 
     bodies to

[[Page H8791]]

     support the board members' overall understanding of the 
     decommissioning process and promote dialogue between the 
     affected stakeholders and the licensee involved in 
     decommissioning activities; and
       (D) how such a board could offer opportunities for public 
     engagement throughout all phases of the decommissioning 
     process;
       (2) a discussion of the composition of a local community 
     advisory board; and
       (3) best practices relating to the establishment and 
     operation of a local community advisory board, including--
       (A) the time of establishment of such a board;
       (B) the frequency of meetings of such a board;
       (C) the selection of board members;
       (D) the term of board members;
       (E) the responsibility for logistics required to support 
     such a board's meetings and other routine activities; and
       (F) any other best practices relating to such a local 
     community advisory board that are identified by the 
     Commission.
       (c) Consultation.--In developing the report described in 
     subsection (a), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall 
     consult with any host State, any community within the 
     emergency planning zone of an applicable nuclear facility, 
     and any existing local community advisory board.

     SEC. 9. REPORT ON STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the status of addressing and 
     implementing the recommendations contained in the memorandum 
     of the Executive Director of Operations of the Commission 
     entitled ``Tasking in Response to the Assessment of the 
     Considerations Identified in a `Study of Reprisal and 
     Chilling Effect for Raising Mission-Related Concerns and 
     Differing Views at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission' '' and 
     dated June 19, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No.: ML18165A296).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1320, the Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Act 
is a bipartisan bill. The NUKE Act, as it is known, was sponsored by my 
Energy and Commerce friends, Adam Kinzinger from Illinois and Mike 
Doyle from Pennsylvania. The bill went through regular order in the 
committee. With only one single amendment, it went through the full 
committee by a voice vote.
  The NUKE Act makes targeted reforms to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. It reforms the fee structure, which, at present, threatens 
to increase the financial burden of our Nation's nuclear fleet, nuclear 
suppliers, and those working on cutting-edge technology. This will be 
critical in the coming years as a large number of reactors are taken 
out of service.
  The bill also streamlines some of the licensing steps and other rules 
at the NRC. It means Congress will get useful information for oversight 
so we can find even more steps to keep the NRC on track. We need to 
make sure the old rules on nuclear power, dating back as far as the 
1960s, still makes sense today.
  Overall, H.R. 1320 will help the nuclear industry with more clear and 
straightforward rules. And in doing so, average Americans and 
companies, large and small, will benefit. Nuclear technology can be 
part of the future for industry, medicine, and clean energy. Nuclear 
power is unique. It is the only baseload power we have that has no 
hydrocarbon emissions, zero. We also make sure that global leadership 
on nuclear power stays right here in America. That is important not 
just for jobs but for our national security.
  There is no question that nuclear power in America is flying into a 
headwind, but there is also no question that the industry provides 
important and sometimes underappreciated benefits to America. Congress 
can help lighten the burden while still making nuclear power the safest 
in the industry.
  H.R. 1320 is a key piece of this effort to ensure we have a robust 
nuclear industry going forward. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1320, the Nuclear 
Utilization of Keynote Energy Act. This bill makes commonsense 
revisions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC's licensing 
process that can ease the financial pressure on the nuclear industry 
without jeopardizing safety or the environment.
  Specifically, the bill makes a number of changes to the NRC's budget 
process and fee structure, most significantly by limiting the fees 
charged to innovate and advance nuclear reactor projects.
  An important component of the bill requires NRC to report back to 
Congress on the commission's actions to address instances of employees 
facing reprisal for raising safety concerns that differ from the 
commission's position on a particular licensing action.
  A recent internal NRC report identified several troubling cases of 
NRC employees, who raised safety issues, being passed over for 
promotions or being excluded from work activities by management. This 
can't stand, and I am pleased that this bill will take steps toward 
addressing this unacceptable situation.
  The bill also requires NRC to report to Congress on best practices 
for community engagement in regions where a nuclear power plant has 
shut down and is going through the decommissioning process. This is 
particularly important in my home State of New Jersey where the Oyster 
Creek Nuclear Generating Station ceased operations last week.
  I appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of this bill, 
Representatives Doyle and Kinzinger, to work with Ranking Member Rush 
and me to make important changes to their original draft bill that 
significantly improved the legislation. I commend Mr. Doyle and Mr. 
Kinzinger for their efforts.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the full Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle for their great work on the Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy 
Act, H.R. 1320. I especially thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Olson), who is one of our real leaders on energy issues writ large on 
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  By any measure, atomic energy has brought tremendous benefits to the 
Nation. It has provided a baseload, emissions-free source of 
electricity that has powered homes and industry over the past half 
century. It has provided an infrastructure for our national and 
international security--from the technologies and fuels for our nuclear 
Navy, to the safety and security for civilian nuclear power the world 
over.
  However, a confluence of factors--abundant natural gas, power market 
designs, economic and regulatory burdens--they have all inhibited the 
Nation's nuclear industry over the past 10 years.
  So the challenge confronting Congress is how to preserve and enhance 
the beneficial use of atomic energy for future generations. To continue 
to harvest the economic and national security benefits associated with 
our domestic nuclear energy infrastructure, we must take steps to 
update the relevant policies. So these policies must be forward looking 
to enable innovation and the development and deployment of new, 
advanced nuclear technologies.
  This bipartisan bill by Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. Doyle updates the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fee structure for the first time in 
nearly 20 years, Madam Speaker. It reflects thoughtful work on both 
sides of the aisle to achieve really good public policy.
  H.R. 1320 establishes reasonable and predictable timeframes for 
regulatory decisions so that companies like Oregon-based NuScale Power 
can develop business plans to commercialize new nuclear technologies 
while also protecting future consumers from high regulator costs.

[[Page H8792]]

  I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their great 
work on yet another piece of legislation out of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1320.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), my colleague on 
the committee.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. 
Pallone. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Nuclear 
Utilization of Keynote Energy Act, or the NUKE Act. I thank my 
colleague, Adam Kinzinger, for introducing this bill and working with 
me to advance it. I also thank Chris Bowman and Claire Borzner from my 
staff, as well as Mr. Kinzinger's staff, and the Energy and Commerce 
Committee staff for their diligent work to get this bill to the floor.
  This legislation is very timely as the nuclear industry is facing 
pressure from a variety of factors. Nuclear energy provides nearly 40 
percent of Pennsylvania's electricity, and it employs thousands of 
skilled workers in Pennsylvania.
  However, increasing NRC fees and uncertainty in the nuclear export 
process threaten this carbon-free and reliable source of baseload 
power. Addressing some of these issues is necessary to protect jobs in 
Pennsylvania and across the country, as well as to meet our Nation's 
climate goals.
  This bipartisan legislation will take important steps to modernize 
the NRC's fee structure, set achievable and flexible timelines for 
application reviews, and look to future reforms that will ensure the 
NRC can continue to effectively protect public health and safety.
  The bill addresses a serious reality facing the nuclear industry. As 
nuclear power plants retire, the remaining fleet will be faced with 
increasing fees from the NRC. We need to support our existing nuclear 
plants while ensuring that the NRC is able to fulfill its mission, and 
I believe that this legislation accomplishes those goals.
  So once again, I thank Mr. Kinzinger for his work, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), the author of the bill.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, H.R. 1320, the 
Nuclear Utilization of Keystone Energy Act, which I proudly introduced 
with my colleague, Mike Doyle. I want to also share my compliments to 
his staff and my staff working together very well on hammering out a 
lot of the technical issues and getting this done. It shows that hard 
work matters.
  The United States is home to nine nuclear power plants--my district 
has four of those--which provide reliable, carbon-free electricity to 
thousands of American homes and businesses.
  Unfortunately, nuclear power is at a critical impasse, and many of 
these plants are facing early retirements, which means a loss of clean 
energy, good jobs, and our global leadership on vital issues like 
safety and nonproliferation.
  This legislation, the NUKE Act, makes commonsense reforms to increase 
transparency, predictability, and accountability at the NRC. Because 
nuclear plants pay to be regulated by the NRC, these reforms, including 
a predictable fee recovery structure, caps on annual fees, and keeping 
overhead costs in line with similar Federal agencies, will not only 
increase stability at our operating plants, but it will also pave the 
way for the next generation of nuclear technology.
  I also think it is important to point out that many times in the 
energy battle, we sometimes find out we needed to do something when it 
is too late and you spend a lot of time playing catch-up. This is a 
proactive way to make sure we maintain this strong fleet of which 
America is a leader.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me and Congressman Doyle in 
supporting H.R. 1320, the NUKE Act, and help ensure a safe and strong 
future for American nuclear power.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
bipartisan initiative, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, the ranking member of the full committee 
said it just perfectly: Support this bill. It is a good bipartisan 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Brooks of Indiana). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1320, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________