PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 17, 2005
Nuclear Waste Terrorist Threat Assessment and Protection Act - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate the development and implementation of an interagency plan to prepare for and defend against terrorist crimes targeting the Yucca Mountain Project (high-level nuclear waste repository being studied at Yucca Mountain, Nevada). Requires that the plan: (1) include a comprehensive analysis of the safety and vulnerability of the Project to Federal crimes of terrorism; (2) address specified types of attacks; (3) give special emphasis to addressing the use of nuclear waste as a radiological weapon, the use of specified technologies, and sabotage or theft of high-level nuclear waste; (4) include a comprehensive strategy for defending against terrorism; and (5) include an analysis of the economic, public health, and environmental costs and impacts of implementing the interagency plan. Directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate the development and implementation of a comprehensive interagency plan to ensure that Federal, State, and local government response plans and programs can respond adequately to the consequences of terrorism against the Project. Requires the Secretary and FEMA to enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Research Council for technical review of the plans. Prohibits the Secretary of Energy from submitting a license application regarding, and prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing a license for, a Yucca Mountain repository unless: (1) such plans are completed and included in the final environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain; (2) public hearings have been held for affected populations; (3) the Secretary has certified that the Project is not vulnerable to terrorism; and (4) the Secretary has prepared and transmitted to Congress a report on the potential liability costs and damages resulting from a wide range of Federal terrorism crimes against the Project.
People & committees
Rep. Berkley, Shelley [D-NV-1] · D–NV
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 Air Quality.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 Committee on Homeland Security, 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 Committee on Homeland Security, 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 15, 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.895 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.895 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.895 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.895 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.