I come back on the floor as I have almost weekly throughout this entire Congress for 2 years to talk about the issue of high-level nuclear waste and what are we to do about it. And I really applaud my colleagues who joined me on June 6, 2012, on an amendment to a spending bill. It was a bipartisan vote; 326 Members of Congress supported finishing the scientific study on Yucca Mountain. That's the money that we had appropriated and that Senator Reid and President Obama did not spend for the scientific study. Then, in the last two cycles, Senator Reid has been blocking additional money for finishing the scientific study. So 226 Republicans and 98 Democrats joined me to really stress the point that we've got to finish this. Yucca Mountain started in 1982 with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It was the defined location--it is the defined location--under current law under the amendments passed in 1987. To not fulfill and not to move forward is, in my estimation, breaking the law of the land. And who's complicit in this is our friends on the other side and the President of the United States. Now, how does that affect the rest of the Nation and the Senators involved and Members involved? Well, we compare the current site of Yucca Mountain to where nuclear waste is located around this country. Yucca Mountain currently has no nuclear waste on-site. We've already spent $15 million over 20 years trying to finish this project.…
Share
More from John Shimkus
In 1939, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's Communist Soviet Union signed a secret agreement to invade and create spheres of influence. The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement allowed Hitler to invade the free and sovereign country of Poland…
Congress declared that quantity was not the true measure of whether EPA was doing its job, but, rather, the quality of the work it was doing.
Would your organizations support Federal legislation that would likely result in EPA being forced to regulate numerous contaminants that are present in low concentrations, irrespective of whether such regulation offers meaningful public…
So, to keep cost out of this debate is ridiculous, because it does cost money to meet these standards, and when you try to cheap out, you hurt the very people that you are supposed to locally protect.





