Verified Customer
|
|
“Outstanding service. They were extremely careful delivering the extra large container into our driveway.” -- A. L. GARNER
National Nuclear Security Administration testified that the agency must “continue to lead international efforts to limit and reduce nuclear arsenals, prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and secure nuclear materials across the globe.” Congress directed the agency to continue constructing the facility. The agency, led by Obama appointees however, performed poorly, delaying the project and running up costs.The Obama administration then broke faith with Congress when it began promoting so-called alternatives and in 2014 attempted to eliminate funding for the fuel facility. The entire South Carolina delegation pushed back in a 2014 letter that declared, “This decision jeopardizes our national security, directly attempts to usurp Congress’ power of the purse, and will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars without a return on investment.”Last year, nonetheless, the Obama administration called for the termination of the nuclear fuel project. Once again, our South Carolina delegation — along with then Gov. Nikki Haley and Attorney General Alan Wilson — fought hard to keep the project on track, and they succeeded. The nuclear fuel project remains the only viable plan for disposing of weapons-grade plutonium. I agree with Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey GrahamWeek ahead: Senate defense bill faces delayWeek ahead: Uncertainty surrounds ObamaCare repeal voteTrump's DOJ gears up for crackdown on marijuanaMORE (R-S.C.) who recently criticized President Obama’s alternative proposal of “dilute and dispose” for surplus weapons-grade plutonium. He said that, “there are several shortcomings with this approach. First, it has already been considered. Second, it was rejected.”The Obama effort to terminate the nuclear fuel program also violates our international non-proliferation agreements and ignores the established law on storing the nuclear material. Changing law and regulation on such storage itself would take years and cost untold amounts of taxpayer dollars.Rep. Joe WilsonJoe WilsonObama left nuclear waste in South Carolina, Trump can clean it upCongress to take up North Korea travel ban legislation as soon as next month: reportAn unlikely home in DCMORE (R-S.C.) also recently noted that terminating the program “puts South Carolina and Georgia at risk of being a permanent dump for nuclear waste. The South Carolina project is the only facility in the nation that, when completed, would be able to convert weapons-grade plutonium into green fuel.”Sen. Tim ScottTim ScottTrump squeezes 'no' vote Heller at healthcare lunchThe Hill's 12:30 ReportGuess who’s stumping for states' rights?MORE (R S.C.) has added that, “The opposition to [the project] is, in my opinion, nonsense. There is no other way to dispose of this weapons-grade plutonium other than the [fuel] facility,”I agree with... (The Hill (blog))