It is the government's fuel; it is the government's waste. You highlighted this earlier. When we don't have a long-term repository to take the spent nuclear fuel or the defense waste--mostly, the spent nuclear fuel--we have to pay the nuclear utilities to hold that spent fuel because we have an obligation by law to receive that. Even from a fiscal conservative position, we should be moving forward. We should get a return on the investment of 30 years and $15 billion, especially since the NRC has said this location is safe; but then we should relieve ourselves from having to pay the additional cost to utilities for holding the waste that we should be holding. I appreciate your leading this Special Order and, of course, again talking about the local issues that are very important in your district, but they are important in districts all around this country. Someone has to lead the charge and make that statement for the Federal Government to start doing what it is legally obligated to do. I am just happy to join you, and I thank you.
On the recordApril 15, 2015
Share
More from John Shimkus
Nov 17, 2023
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process
Nov 18, 2020
Many of us know that the House could not function without the professional nonpartisan personnel who ensure that we can do our job. We do at times as an institution pause and thank them, but now it is time for me to do it personally. I…
Sep 15, 2020
I would hope in our discussions we would work with the majority to try to make sure we somehow incentivize nuclear baseload because of zero-carbon emissions.
Sep 17, 2020
As folks in the Chamber know, I have been taking some time to thank friends, family, and staff, for supporting me these 24 years as a Member of the House. Today, before I go down the organizational chart and mention caseworkers…





