Business meeting to consider the nominations of Jeffrey Hall, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Katherine Scarlett, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Council on Environmental Quality, and 10 GSA resolutions; to be immediately followed by an oversight hearing to examine the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

2025-09-03

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

The meeting commenced with the adoption of ten GSA resolutions and the favorable reporting of Catherine Scarlett's nomination to the Council on Environmental Quality, which passed with a vote of 12 ayes to 7 nays.[ 00:18:14-00:19:01 ] The bulk of the session then focused on an oversight hearing for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), addressing the evolving landscape of nuclear energy, regulatory efficiency, and concerns about agency independence and workforce stability.

Themes

NRC Independence and External Influence

Significant concerns were raised regarding the NRC's independence and potential political interference from the administration. Ranking Member Whitehouse and Senators Markey and Sanders voiced strong opposition to the presence of "Doge staffers" within the NRC, suggesting they lack nuclear expertise and are attempting to restructure the agency and bypass independent decisions, turning the NRC into a "rubber stamp."[ 00:24:53-00:25:01 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Chairman Wright clarified that while one "Doge staffer" acts as a consultant, the others report to NRC personnel, and he asserted that the NRC would not "rubber stamp" anything that is not proven safe.[ 01:16:54-01:17:13 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Commissioners Marzano and Crowell acknowledged the possibility of being fired for decisions that contradict administration desires, highlighting a perceived pressure on the agency. The commissioners committed to upholding the NRC's principles of good regulation, including independence, to protect public health and safety.

Nuclear Energy Deployment and Regulatory Efficiency

There was broad bipartisan agreement on the need for nuclear energy to meet rising power demands and address climate goals, with speakers emphasizing the role of nuclear in achieving energy security and supporting industries like artificial intelligence.[ 00:38:21 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 The ADVANCE Act and Executive Order 14300 were discussed as tools to modernize the federal permitting process and streamline NRC regulations to facilitate "safe use" of nuclear technology.[ 00:30:18-00:30:19 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:41:19-00:41:26 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Chairman Wright confirmed efforts to accelerate review times, extend design certifications, and enable plant restarts, stressing the NRC's commitment to making processes more efficient without compromising safety.[ 01:21:06-01:21:24 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Commissioners largely agreed on the necessity of pursuing both large-scale nuclear plants and advanced modular reactors to meet ambitious energy goals.

NRC Workforce Challenges and Staffing

A critical theme was the NRC's significant workforce challenges, including a high percentage of retirement-eligible staff and ongoing attrition, compounded by a federal hiring freeze.[ 00:48:20 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Senators expressed concern that the loss of institutional knowledge and technical expertise could hinder the NRC's ability to meet growing regulatory demands and maintain safety standards. Chairman Wright acknowledged the "perfect storm" of retirements and recruitment by the private sector but stated that the NRC has talent on the bench, is actively recruiting, and has exemptions for critical hires. Commissioner Crowell highlighted that restrictions on intern and fellowship programs impede the development of the next-generation workforce.

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely bipartisan in its recognition of the importance of nuclear energy for the nation's energy future and addressing climate change.[ 00:38:21 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 However, it was also marked by significant concern and frustration from some members regarding perceived political interference in the NRC's independent regulatory role, particularly in light of staff attrition, the influence of external "doggy staffers," and the White House's review of NRC decisions. This led to pointed exchanges and clear expressions of worry about the NRC's independence and its ability to maintain its "gold standard reputation for nuclear safety" amidst external pressures. Despite these tensions, commissioners reiterated their unwavering commitment to safety and efficiency.

Participants

Transcript

Everybody and welcome back.  I note the presence of a quorum and I'm going to call this business meeting to order.  Thank you all for being here.  For the information of the members of the committee, ranking member Whitehouse and I will deliver our opening statements and once we have sufficient attendance we will vote on the 10 GSA resolutions en bloc and then following that vote we will proceed to the vote on one pending nominee.   After the roll call vote, members who wish to be recognized to speak on the nomination may do so.  So now I'm going to give my opening statement to welcome and thank my colleagues for attending today, but also to vote on the nomination of Catherine Scarlett to be a member of the Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ.  Catherine is an excellent choice to lead CEQ.  As CEQ's current Chief of Staff, she has worked with federal agencies to implement the Bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act,   and coordinate updates to agencies' individual NEPA procedures to reflect recent court decisions and executive policies.  She's also led the effort in this administration to modernize the NEPA process through the use of technology.  Prior to her current position, she worked here for me at the committee at EPW and served at both CEQ and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council in the previous Trump administration, experiences that make her well qualified to lead the council.   I urge my colleagues to support this nomination, and I look forward to her swift consideration on the floor.  I also encourage my colleagues to support the 10 GSA resolutions that will authorize important repair and alteration projects across the country.  With that, I'll turn to Ranking Member Whitehouse for his opening statement.
Thanks very much.  I understand we'll take Jeffrey Hall up at some later opportunity, so I'll reserve comment on him other than to let the colleagues on my side know that I   vociferously oppose his nomination to the enforcement office, whose policy nowadays seems to be non-enforcement.  Basically, the polluter fox is in the hen house, and it's a sad state of affairs.   As to Ms.  Scarlett, I support the work that CEQ under her leadership is undertaking to implement eNEPA updates to modernize federal permitting process.  I will vote yes on her nomination.  This work is long overdue.   In November, a DC Circuit panel ruled, without actually any party raising the issue, that CEQ lacked the authority to issue NEPA regulations.  That leaves our fractured agencies to develop each their own guidance, creating an inefficient patchwork of divergent rules   and inconsistent applications of a law.  This makes permitting reform an even greater priority, and I look forward to working with Ms.  Scarlett to advance that ball.  However, how can we do permitting reform in the face of an administration that seems lawlessly to disrespect the permitting and appropriations process?   If we were to work out a deal, and I hope we will, what's the point if the president and his cronies can just simply ignore the law and do whatever it is that they wish based on special interest influence?  That seems to be where we are right now.  If they're not following well-established laws, why would we trust them to follow a new permitting reform law?  So there's going to have to be some clarity about that.
as we move towards permitting reform.  Two things happened in Rhode Island during the course of the break that I want to flag for my colleagues.  One, a grant for the port of Davisville was simply undone by the administration.  It's hard to know exactly what   was intended.  As ranking member, I did not get the courtesy of an advance call saying that this was coming.  It just blew up in the paper suddenly that all of these port dollars were gone.  We have seen what I call the heresy hunt.   where you have to go through applications and remove heretical language that the far right doesn't like, like equity or climate, that kind of stuff.  If this is a heresy hunt and we can keep going with the grant, if we can change the words so that people aren't triggered and offended by language in the original application,   Okay, that's one thing.  We're trying to get an answer to that.  If it's just blown up, that's another thing.  If the goal here is to target offshore wind, which I think is an idiotic mistake, well, the Port of Davisville does a lot more than offshore wind.   It's the largest car entrant in New England in the Northeast.  Huge business there.  It's an old facility that needs piers rebuilt just because of age.  It's right adjacent to where we build our submarines.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up