Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (House of Representatives - July 17, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit strikes all funds for Yucca Mountain Geological Repository. I think it's time to get everyone on the record about where they stand.

This motion would fulfill the President's stated intention to ``terminate'' Yucca Mountain. It would support Speaker Pelosi's anti-nuclear stance, and it would probably make Senator Reid very happy.

Some on the other side of the aisle may question the intent of this amendment, but there is no gimmick here. The motion does exactly what I described. Even more, it provides each of us with the opportunity to show where we stand on this critical issue of a permanent geological repository at Yucca Mountain.

Let me tell my colleagues what else this amendment would do.

First, most of our districts are either storing or producing spent nuclear fuel. Currently, 104 nuclear reactors provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity needs. Spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is being stored on-site at 121 locations across 39 States, sites that were never intended for long-term storage. These are sites in your districts.

I personally know that this fuel is safe where it is today. However, the Secretary of Energy has admitted that even with his blue ribbon panel a permanent geological repository will be necessary.

By voting for this amendment, we would ensure that this material stays where it is for the next 25 to 50 years or perhaps longer. And it would add additional delays and costs to the development of a permanent geological repository to be built in any State other than Nevada.

Second, it would rob our constituents of potential jobs and tax revenue. For those of you who have metal workers or pipe fitters or welders or scientists in your districts, this amendment would curb their ability to gain and secure high-paying jobs operating nuclear power plants that can sustain 700 permanent jobs, while new plants generate as many as 2,400 construction jobs. Our constituents need these jobs, and our country needs the power these nuclear plants create.

As I said, 20 percent of the electricity is produced by nuclear power. What you may not know is 72 percent of the non-carbon emitting electricity is produced by nuclear power.

Third, killing Yucca Mountain would bring over $22 billion of liability against the Federal Government; $22 billion is just an estimate. Some have estimated as high as $50 billion. This is money which the Federal Government will owe to the industry because we have failed to live up to our responsibilities.

We have signed contracts with these companies to take this waste off their hands. And because of political deals like that between the President and Senator Reid, we have failed. As a result, the taxpayers will have to pay $22 billion or more in fines and penalties.

Colleagues, these are the ramifications if you support killing Yucca Mountain. You see, the President and Senator Reid's plan to kill Yucca Mountain has no alternatives. It is only a study, a blue ribbon commission. This project has been studied to death. We have spent $10.5 billion on it, 1.5 million documents. Over 50 studies by the National Science Foundation have been done on this Yucca Mountain. We know it is scientifically sound.

The President's decision was a political bow to the Senate majority leader, not one based on good science or good policy.

I make this motion to recommit so that none of us here can claim that we don't know the facts. I want all of us to have the opportunity to be on record today. We can vote for this motion to fill the President's and Senator Reid's plan to kill Yucca Mountain. This will keep nuclear waste scattered across the country for the foreseeable future, potentially costing taxpayers $22 billion or more in liabilities, jeopardizing the stability of the electrical system, lose jobs and tax revenues in our districts, and kick the can down the road on the location of a permanent geological repository that will still have to be built. Or we can defeat it, supporting good policy and ensuring that science, not politics, rules the majority of our decisions here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002 this body voted overwhelmingly in favor of approving the Yucca Mountain site location. I'm not here to urge you to vote for or against this motion to recommit. The choice is up to all of us, but none of us can or should remain on the sidelines.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source