Paul Broun

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed and is in the process of enacting regulations targeting traditional, inexpensive sources of energy.

The answer I got from the Secretary does not give me any confidence that there is any communication.

It is going to cost thousands, if not millions, of jobs. It is going to hurt our economy.

I see the EPA making rules without consideration to the economic cost and even utilizing what appears to me to be junk science in forming their regulations.

Well, the thing is what it appears to me is that the policies of this Administration are increasing the cost of all energy production.

If these interagency communications do indeed take place, would you agree that it is the apparent policy of this Administration to increase the cost of energy and to dramatically limit domestic access to those energy resources?

We have seen over and over again here with the Endangered Species Act and other Federal law that science is not sometimes true science.

I am extremely concerned about where you are going with this proposed rule.

I think we are going to see more and more lawsuits being generated because of this proposed rule.

I have been associated with where actually the Endangered Species Act harms the proper conservation of species.

Science is not sometimes true science.

I have a bill that would require hunting to be a consideration in all wildlife management on Federal properties.

Why is such an important activity given only a negligible mention and offered little in the way of express protections?

Responses by Dr. Mark Peters, Deputy Laboratory Director for Programs, Argonne National Laboratory

As a Nation, we should be moving forward in accordance with the law established by Congress through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act unless and until that law is changed.

We see no drawbacks whatsoever in the NRC completing its technical review of Yucca Mountain.

Science--not politics--should govern the process for selecting a permanent repository for nuclear waste.

We continue to believe Yucca Mountain was--and is--the right answer for permanent nuclear waste disposal.

Excluding Yucca Mountain definitely detracts from the Blue Ribbon Commission's ability to develop the best possible recommendations.

The Country needs a repository to dispose of its spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

It is an outrage that Federal law is so blatantly being ignored.

Deep boreholes have the potential to provide essentially complete isolation for the wastes indefinitely.

Ultimately, nuclear waste management is a commercial activity.

Government management of commercial activities does not work.

Continuing to suppress this critical data seems to contradict President Obama's scientific integrity objectives.