Statements and Speeches

Statement on the Future of Yucca Mountain, Nevada
April 18, 2002

By Henry A. Waxman

Today, the Subcommittee begins what very well may be an unprecedented process in the history of the U.S. Congress. Over the course of the next six hours or so we will receive testimony from twelve witnesses. On the basis of their testimony we will be asked to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the permanent repository for the nation's high level nuclear waste. And, the ramifications of our decision will easily extend for tens of thousands of years.

Can you imagine if 50 years ago, the government made a decision about how the internet would work?

Can you imagine if 100 years ago, the government made a decision about manned space flight?

Can you imagine if 200 years ago, the government designed our interstate highway system?

There are times that the government has imperfect information but must still make decisions that affect the future. Time after time, in fact, when we've tried to enact health or environmental legislation, we've been told we need to wait for more science, for better science. Can we legislate on global warming? No -- we need more science. Tighten air pollution standards -- nope, we need more science.

When it comes to strong health and environmental legislation, industry never thinks there's enough science. Now industry -- and it seems a lot of members here -- want to push science aside. But for a decision like Yucca Mountain -- which is unmatched in its enduring impact -- we ought to have the best science of all.

We all know we don't have anything close to the best science today. The reason is that the Administration has recommended Yucca Mountain before the best science has even been developed.

Today, the General Accounting Office will testify that there are hundreds of unresolved technical issues with Yucca Mountain. According to the GAO, if the Administration had waited until it had better information to recommend Yucca Mountain, DOE would be in a much better position to answer the many questions about this site.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will testify today that the DOE's technical basis for Yucca Mountain's performance is only "weak to moderate." And, Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, will testify that the Administration is "railroading" Yucca Mountain towards approval.

Yucca Mountain appears to be just the latest example of this Administration putting politics ahead of science. From efforts to weaken protections from arsenic in drinking water to climate change to ergonomics, the Administration has repeatedly appeared to place ideology and politics ahead of science and the public interest.

Today we begin the process of approving the Administration's endorsement of politics over science. I can easily understand why Nevadans -- both Democrats and Republicans -- are outraged by this process. The Administration and Congress intend to send nuclear waste -- which will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years -- to you, without good science, without thoughtful deliberation. You and the country deserve better.