Two points of this is that all of the counties minus Clark have resolutions on record supporting Yucca Mountain.
John Shimkus
The Public Record
John Shimkus is a former U.S. Representative from Illinois, serving in the House from January 7, 1997, until January 3, 2021. A member of the Republican Party, he represented Illinois's 15th congressional district. During his tenure, Shimkus was known for his work on issues related to energy, environment, and agriculture, often advocating for policies that supported these sectors. He served on several committees, including the Energy and Commerce Committee, where he focused on energy policy and environmental regulations.
So, I mean, my point is, what makes you believe that another consent-based approach somewhere in this country is not going to end up 30 years later and $15 billion in the hole just like we have right now at Yucca Mountain?
After over 30 years and $15 billion, the American people deserve to know the NRC's independent, objective conclusion.
I remain committed to ensuring that consumers get the repository that they have paid for and that the costs to the taxpayers are minimized.
I can't help but feel like you have been put in an incredibly difficult position.
In 2009, the administration unilaterally decided to cancel the Yucca Mountain program and sought to withdraw the license application.
It appears congressional action is needed, and I am willing to work with my colleagues to address this issue.
In 2008, after decades of research, DOE filed an 8,700-page license application at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain.
I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the…
I withdraw my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment. The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. There was no objection.
I want to thank my colleague from Texas, who has helped us move the bill forward. I would remind my colleagues that the President has not issued a veto signal on this piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend…
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management wrote a letter in support of this bill and its safety and protection. Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
I want to thank my colleague for working with us and making some changes that we thought were appropriate. We agree with my colleague from Virginia that States should identify what their emergency response procedures are in the…
The basic premise of this bill is that the Federal Government can set safety standards and the States can enforce it, so reject the motion to instruct. I am going to turn my comments to people who live in the coal areas of our country…
I would ask my colleague to look at the 11 additional changes that have been made in this bill versus the last bill and realize how much we have moved in the direction that he speaks of. I now yield 7 minutes to the author of the…
Let me remind my colleagues of some of the special interests: United Mine Workers of America, Building and Construction Trades, and the Transportation Workers of America. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the…
I remind my colleagues that the administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
I claim time in opposition. The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
To my colleague from California, we're waiting for a few Members. I'm not sure they are going to get here. I'm willing to have you close, and then I'll close after you're finished. I reserve the balance of my time.
The State permit program must incorporate minimum requirements which are based on regulations promulgated by the EPA to ``protect human health and the environment,'' which include groundwater monitoring of all structures, fugitive dust…
But that is why we are having this hearing. That is exactly why we are here.
The public interest, the public policy designed by the legislation which was passed.
But, and I think one of the things that was not said explicitly, but we all know, is that we will be in an E10 environment because of the engine and infrastructure hurdles for some time.





