On the recordJune 7, 2018
Let me be clear what this amendment does. This is 1,000 pages of the safety and evaluation report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--5 volumes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is our independent safety agency on all things nuclear. What my colleague from Nevada's amendment does is strip the money for what they keep telling me they want. They want to prove the science. They want to say it is not safe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it is safe for a million years. Now, if my colleagues from Nevada want to debate the science, then they can do that, per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, through the licensing project. But, no, they don't want to put their science up against our independent nuclear safety agency. They want to adjudicate this in the court of public opinion and deprive the money to have that final science debate. So this amendment is really an anti-science amendment to not debate the NRC's finding, because we know that in their conclusion they say storing nuclear waste in a long-term geological repository--and this is the world consensus--in a deep geological repository is what the world's scientists say is the safest way to store spent nuclear fuel and defense waste. That is not just the United States. That is France. That is Norway. That is Great Britain. That is many of our allies and friends and their scientists. Again, 1,000 pages, 5 volumes, public record. This amendment takes that money away so we don't have a debate on the science.…





