Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee - Markup of H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2012, and H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012

Statement

Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, blasted Judiciary Republicans for putting Americans who live in close proximity to nuclear reactors at increased risk in the event of a catastrophic meltdown. At a Judiciary markup of H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2012, and H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012, Republicans overwhelmingly rejected Nadler's two amendments to exempt federal improvements on nuclear safety from these anti-regulatory and counter-productive bills. With the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan fresh on our minds, it is critical to ensure the safe operation of nuclear reactors, and Congress should not make agency actions to keep us safe from nuclear disaster more difficult. This is especially relevant for the New York City area, where some 20 million people live within a 50-mile radius of the Indian Point Nuclear Plant.

"If H.R. 4078 were in place, many critical nuclear safety changes would be delayed until unemployment drops below some arbitrary number -- in this case, six percent," said Nadler. "Critical safety measures would be blocked until there was a decline in unemployment despite the fact that such rules have nothing to do with unemployment being high in the first place. Such a policy would be beyond bizarre…My amendment would avoid forcing this trade-off by exempting from the bill rules designed to prevent nuclear disaster. If we don't pass this amendment, we at least ought to change the name of the bill to the Nuclear Death and Destruction Act of 2012, because that's what the bill's enactment could result in."

The following is the text of Nadler's opening statement on H.R. 4078, as prepared:

"As has been discussed, the bill we're marking up today would place a moratorium on any significant regulatory action until unemployment drops below six percent. My amendment would exempt from this blanket moratorium government regulatory actions taken to protect us from nuclear disaster -- a worthwhile goal, I believe.

"Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase the hero of many on your side of the aisle, here -- we go -- again. We're again blaming our high unemployment rate on government regulations -- an ideological view which has no basis in fact.

"Just focusing on the unemployment rate for a moment, when our previous president, George W. Bush, took office in January 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. When he left office, eight years later, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. I'd be happy to hear from any Member on the other side of the aisle who can explain to me how the numerous and onerous rules imposed by the Bush Administration caused the unemployment rate to almost double during his time in office. I highly doubt that any Member of the Majority will argue rules established or enforced by President Bush lead to higher unemployment.

"At the same time, while unemployment did increase initially under President Obama, to as high as 10 percent soon after he took office, it has now declined to 8.3 percent. If President Obama's government run amok is to blame for high unemployment, what explains this almost 20 percent decline?

"The bottom line is that despite whatever facts are presented or reality exists, there are some people who won't listen and won't yield. So, I suspect we'll continue to hear this same canard over, and over, and over again, that somehow government regulation is to blame for high unemployment and slow economic growth.

"Beyond the absurdity that this bill represents, if enacted something like it could have seriously negative consequences. Take, for example, the issue of nuclear power.

"All Americans recognize the catastrophe that could occur as a result of damage at a nuclear power plant -- be it caused by nature or man. We just marked the one-year anniversary of the Japanese tsunami, and everyone remembers the worry over its effect on the Fukushima nuclear power plant. My constituents and I have particular reason to be concerned.

"As I said during our last debate on a similar anti-regulatory bill when I brought up this nuclear issue, my congressional district lies just less than 40 miles from an old nuclear power plant, Indian Point. There are 20 million people living within a 50-mile radius of the plant, the same radius used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as the basis for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster. Indian Point also sits near two fault lines and according to the NRC is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage due to an earthquake.

"Fortunately, officials at the NRC examined what happened in Japan and developed recommendations to prevent such a disaster from happening in this country. Just a few weeks ago, the NRC adopted three Orders to effectuate some of those recommendations. As summarized by the Associated Press, these new policies would require nuclear power plants here to:

* "install or improve venting systems to limit core damage in a serious accident';
* "install sophisticated equipment to monitor water levels in pools of spent nuclear fuel'; and,
* "improve protection of safety equipment installed after the 2001 terrorist attacks and make sure it can handle damage to multiple reactors at the same time.'

"The NRC continues to work on implementing the remainder of the recommendations developed after the Fukushima disaster.

"If H.R. 4078 were in place, many rules imposing changes similar to those just imposed by the NRC would be delayed until unemployment drops below some arbitrary number -- in this case, six percent. Critical safety measures would be blocked until there was a decline in unemployment despite the fact that such rules have nothing to do with unemployment being high in the first place. Such a policy would be beyond bizarre.

"Additionally, it's hard to understand how delaying nuclear safety rules until some arbitrary date in the future is in the public interest. People's life and physical safety are, not surprisingly, of prime importance and I doubt they'd be happy to learn there was a nuclear disaster because a high unemployment rate blocked safety rules.

"My amendment would avoid forcing this trade-off by exempting from the bill rules designed to prevent nuclear disaster. If we don't pass this amendment, we at least ought to change the name of the bill to the Nuclear Death and Destruction Act of 2012, because that's what the bill's enactment could result in.

"I ask all Members to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time."

Source