To reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6037
Last Updated: November 19, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

ID: L000600

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

âś…

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative artistry, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 6037 is to reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project, because what's a few more years of throwing money at a problem without actually solving it? The objective is to prolong the agony, er, I mean, the "demonstration" phase, while lining the pockets of contractors and special interest groups.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act by increasing funding from $75 million to $150 million per year for the next decade. Because, you know, doubling down on a failed strategy is always a great idea. This change will undoubtedly lead to more "demonstrations" of incompetence and waste.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Contractors and special interest groups who will reap the benefits of this pork-barrel project * Taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this boondoggle * The environment, which will continue to suffer from the lack of actual progress on nuclear waste management

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is more of the same: a decade-long demonstration of bureaucratic ineptitude, with no tangible results. The implications are clear:

* A continued lack of accountability and transparency in government spending * Further enrichment of special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers * A perpetuation of the status quo, where politicians prioritize re-election over actual problem-solving

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Legislative Lethargy," a disease characterized by a lack of vision, courage, and intellectual honesty. The symptoms include:

* Doubling down on failed strategies * Prioritizing special interests over the public good * Ignoring the root causes of problems in favor of Band-Aid solutions

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for the absurdity of it all, and a willingness to call out the politicians and lobbyists who perpetuate this nonsense. But let's be real, folks, we're dealing with a terminal case here. The patient is beyond saving.

Related Topics

Civil Rights & Liberties Small Business & Entrepreneurship Federal Budget & Appropriations Congressional Rules & Procedures State & Local Government Affairs National Security & Intelligence Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Transportation & Infrastructure Government Operations & Accountability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$141,700
24 donors
PACs
$9,800
Organizations
$2,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$125,400
1
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
2 transactions
$4,800
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
2
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
2 transactions
$750
3
2504 NIAGARA FALLS BOULEVARD LLC
1 transaction
$500
4
BARRY ZEPLOWITZ & ASSOCIATES
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
DEGEORGE, JOSEPH R.
3 transactions
$19,800
2
FISCHER, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
3
MEHTA, JETT
1 transaction
$6,600
4
CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
5
GRANT, CHRIS M.
1 transaction
$6,600
6
MURPHY, JOHN R.
1 transaction
$6,600
7
BERMAN, WAYNE
1 transaction
$6,600
8
CHEN, THOMAS
1 transaction
$6,600
9
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
1 transaction
$6,600
10
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$6,600
11
WILLIAMS, JEFFREY D.
1 transaction
$6,600
12
FISCHER, ROBERT
1 transaction
$6,600
13
ATWAL, EPHRAIM
1 transaction
$6,600
14
CALORICO, CARLY
1 transaction
$6,600
15
DOHENY, MATT
1 transaction
$6,600
16
EISEN, JOSH
1 transaction
$6,600
17
GALANIS, TERRY
1 transaction
$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 25 nodes and 30 connections

Total contributions: $141,700

Top Donors - Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

2 PACs4 Orgs1 Committee17 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 57.7%
Pages: 428-430

— 396 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Increase the use of commercial waste disposal. Using commercial disposal would reduce capital costs (~ $2 billion) for new disposal sites to accelerate cleanup and reduce local post-cleanup environmental liability at multiple sites. l Revisit the Hanford cleanup’s regulatory framework. Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals. l Establish more direct leadership and accountability to the Deputy Secretary consistent with Government Accountability Office recommendations.91 l Change Environmental Management’s culture to promote innovation and completion. Budget Environmental Management received slightly less than $7.6 billion in FY 2021, and its budget request for FY 2023 is approximately $8.06 billion.92 The additional funding necessary to accelerate closure of the program will need to be considered as part of a broader government-wide discussion about yearly appropriations. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM) (CURRENTLY OFFICE OF SPENT FUEL AND WASTE DISPOSITION) Mission/Overview The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 conferred the responsibility for commercial nuclear waste disposal on the federal government,93 and in 2002, Congress designated a single repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national repository site. The act also established the Office of Civilian Radio- active Waste Management (OCRWM).94 The Obama Administration shut down OCRWM in 2010. The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, which is headed by a non-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, is currently responsible for the management of nuclear waste, and interim disposal is taking place on various sites. Providing a plan for the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste is essential to the promotion of nuclear power in the United States. — 397 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions Needed Reforms l Work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for Yucca Mountain. According to both the scientific community and global experience, deep geologic storage is critical to any plan for the proper disposal of more than 75 years of defense waste and 80,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel.95 Yucca Mountain remains a viable option for waste management, and DOE should recommit to working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for a repository. Finishing the review does not mean that Yucca Mountain will be completed and operational; it merely presents all the information for the State of Nevada, Congress, the nuclear industry, and the Administration to use as the basis for informed decisions. l Reform the licensing process. The reactor licensing process is inadequate. Fixing nuclear waste management will require wholesale reform that realigns responsibilities, resets incentives, and introduces market forces without creating chaos within the current nuclear industry that has been built around the current system. l Produce concrete outcomes from consent-based siting. Beginning in the Obama Administration and resurrected during the Biden Administration, consent-based siting for a civilian waste nuclear repository has been a way to delay any politically painful decisions about siting a permanent civilian nuclear waste facility. In 2022, DOE announced $16 million to support local communities in consent-based siting.96 The next Administration should use the consent-based-siting process to identify and build temporary or permanent sites for a civilian waste nuclear repository (or repositories). New Policies l Restart Yucca Mountain licensing. DOE should restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Any continuation of interim storage facilities should be made part of an integrated waste management system that includes geologic storage. Further, building on the consent-based siting process already underway, DOE should find a second repository site. l Fix the policy and cost drivers that are preventing nuclear storage. The federal government continues to hold $46 billion97 in the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF),98 funded by utilities and their ratepayers for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. However, no such storage exists, and spent nuclear fuel remains on site at most nuclear plants. Meanwhile, Congress uses those funds to finance unrelated spending. Moreover, DOE’s

Introduction

Low 57.5%
Pages: 428-430

— 395 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research.”85 Its cleanup program is the world’s largest, and EM reports that 92 (of 107) sites have been completed.86 According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “DOE is responsible for the largest share of the federal government’s environmental liability—about 85 percent in fiscal year 2020.”87 Since 2011, EM has spent a cumulative total of $63.2 billion, and its liability has grown by $243 billion.88 It is currently projected that cleanup will take another 70 years (FY 2022 to FY 2091).89 Projected “Low Range” and “High Range” lifecycle costs total slightly less than $652.4 billion and slightly more than $887.2 billion, respectively.90 Needed Reforms Some states (and contractors), see EM as a jobs program and have little interest in accelerating the cleanup. EM needs to move to an expeditious program with targets for cleanup of sites. The Hanford site in Washington State is a particular challenge. The Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) among DOE, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, and Washington State’s Department of Ecology has hampered attempts to accelerate and innovate the cleanup. A central challenge at Hanford is the classification of radioactive waste. High-Level Waste (HLW) and Low-Level Waste (LLW) classifications drive the remediation and disposal process. Under President Trump, significant changes in waste classification from HLW to LLW enabled significant progress on remediation. Implementation needs to continue across the complex, particularly at Hanford. New Policies The next Administration should: l Accelerate the cleanup. This means that a comprehensive cost projection and schedule reflecting the entire scope of the job should be developed and appropriate reforms should be instituted. To save taxpayers a potential $500 billion over the long run and reduce current risk, a 10-year program to complete all sites by 2035 (except Hanford with a target date of 2060) should be considered. Such a commitment will require increased funding for EM during those accelerated periods. To the extent that funding from the IIJA and IRA cannot be repealed, requests to divert those funds to EM’s cleanup obligations should be considered. l Fully implement High-Level Waste determination. Fully adopting the High-Level Waste (HLW) determination across the DOE complex, particularly at Hanford, would allow LLW to be grouted rather than vitrified. — 396 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Increase the use of commercial waste disposal. Using commercial disposal would reduce capital costs (~ $2 billion) for new disposal sites to accelerate cleanup and reduce local post-cleanup environmental liability at multiple sites. l Revisit the Hanford cleanup’s regulatory framework. Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals. l Establish more direct leadership and accountability to the Deputy Secretary consistent with Government Accountability Office recommendations.91 l Change Environmental Management’s culture to promote innovation and completion. Budget Environmental Management received slightly less than $7.6 billion in FY 2021, and its budget request for FY 2023 is approximately $8.06 billion.92 The additional funding necessary to accelerate closure of the program will need to be considered as part of a broader government-wide discussion about yearly appropriations. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM) (CURRENTLY OFFICE OF SPENT FUEL AND WASTE DISPOSITION) Mission/Overview The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 conferred the responsibility for commercial nuclear waste disposal on the federal government,93 and in 2002, Congress designated a single repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national repository site. The act also established the Office of Civilian Radio- active Waste Management (OCRWM).94 The Obama Administration shut down OCRWM in 2010. The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, which is headed by a non-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, is currently responsible for the management of nuclear waste, and interim disposal is taking place on various sites. Providing a plan for the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste is essential to the promotion of nuclear power in the United States.

Introduction

Low 57.5%
Pages: 428-430

— 395 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research.”85 Its cleanup program is the world’s largest, and EM reports that 92 (of 107) sites have been completed.86 According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “DOE is responsible for the largest share of the federal government’s environmental liability—about 85 percent in fiscal year 2020.”87 Since 2011, EM has spent a cumulative total of $63.2 billion, and its liability has grown by $243 billion.88 It is currently projected that cleanup will take another 70 years (FY 2022 to FY 2091).89 Projected “Low Range” and “High Range” lifecycle costs total slightly less than $652.4 billion and slightly more than $887.2 billion, respectively.90 Needed Reforms Some states (and contractors), see EM as a jobs program and have little interest in accelerating the cleanup. EM needs to move to an expeditious program with targets for cleanup of sites. The Hanford site in Washington State is a particular challenge. The Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) among DOE, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, and Washington State’s Department of Ecology has hampered attempts to accelerate and innovate the cleanup. A central challenge at Hanford is the classification of radioactive waste. High-Level Waste (HLW) and Low-Level Waste (LLW) classifications drive the remediation and disposal process. Under President Trump, significant changes in waste classification from HLW to LLW enabled significant progress on remediation. Implementation needs to continue across the complex, particularly at Hanford. New Policies The next Administration should: l Accelerate the cleanup. This means that a comprehensive cost projection and schedule reflecting the entire scope of the job should be developed and appropriate reforms should be instituted. To save taxpayers a potential $500 billion over the long run and reduce current risk, a 10-year program to complete all sites by 2035 (except Hanford with a target date of 2060) should be considered. Such a commitment will require increased funding for EM during those accelerated periods. To the extent that funding from the IIJA and IRA cannot be repealed, requests to divert those funds to EM’s cleanup obligations should be considered. l Fully implement High-Level Waste determination. Fully adopting the High-Level Waste (HLW) determination across the DOE complex, particularly at Hanford, would allow LLW to be grouted rather than vitrified.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.