PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 15, 2008
Fast Track Nuclear Act of 2008 - Directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to approve or deny an application for a license under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 within one year after its receipt if: (1) the application incorporates a facility design approved by the NRC; (2) the facility will be built by a company with a proven history of building safe and efficient power plant facilities; and (3) an appropriate authority from the local jurisdiction within which the facility is proposed to operate has asked the NRC to approve the license application.
States that construction and operation of such a facility is not subject to challenge or delay under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or any other federal or state environmental law.
Authorizes appropriations for research, to be carried out through the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, on new and innovative designs for nuclear facilities that: (1) produce more energy than current designs; (2) reduce output nuclear waste; and (3) increase safety features.
People & committees
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2] · R–NM
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 Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and Science and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and Science and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and Science and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and Science and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Aug 14, 2025. 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 H.R.6895 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 H.R.6895 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 H.R.6895 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 H.R.6895 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.