John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, has adequate funds to resume licensing activities for the Yucca nuclear waste repository as called for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but it refuses to do so. The NRC claims it has the legal authority to ignore the law duly enacted by this Congress if the agency isn't given enough money to ``finish the job.'' Under our Constitution, agencies are funded year to year. They are seldom, if ever, given enough money in 1 year to do everything the law tells them to do, especially for long-term projects. In 2008 when the Yucca Mountain licensing proceedings started, Congress appropriated NRC enough money to conduct the proceedings for that year. We sure didn't give it enough to complete the 3-year licensing proceeding. In 2009, we gave the NRC enough to carry out the proceeding for another year. The NRC didn't stop because it didn't have enough money to finish the job. In fact, NRC only stopped the licensing and refused to spend money appropriated for licensing based on the administration's policy decision that the site is no longer workable. Now, after being hauled into Federal court for ignoring a statutory duty to decide the license application in 3 years, the NRC claims it doesn't have to follow the law because, while it has plenty of money to resume the licensing process and move it forward, it doesn't have enough money to finish it. When we pass a law and tell an agency to do something and give it enough money to do a job during a given year, can the agency just thumb its nose and say, We're not going to do that job at all because Congress didn't give us enough money to finish the job next year? No agency has ever successfully told a court not to make it follow the law because in some future year it might not get enough money to do the job the law requires. Allowing NRC to cancel Yucca would unconstitutionally shift the balance of powers to executive agencies to evade congressionally mandated legal obligations. The Federal appellate court has made its displeasure with the NRC's legal position known. We need to do the same. This is an outrageous unilateral decision to stop Yucca and not spend funds specifically appropriated for licensing activities. No agency can ignore a statutory duty to proceed with a project based on a subjective determination that adequate funds may not be available to complete the project in the future. We need to send a clear message to every agency this isn't how our Constitution works. So on top of the over $10 million that the NRC has now to restart the licensing process, this amendment provides an additional $10 million in new funds so they can continue the process. The amendment is budget neutral and fully offset by taking funds from the DOE's departmental administration account. We are asking DOE to do more with a little less by making modest cuts to an account for salaries and expenses. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to fund the legally required licensing process for Yucca Mountain so that the NRC, an independent government agency, has funding necessary to finish their thorough, objective, and technical review. In doing so, the NRC, not political games, will determine whether Yucca Mountain would make a safe repository. Having spent 30 years and $15 billion of ratepayer money, the American people at least deserve to find out the answer to whether Yucca is safe. And whether you favor nuclear power or Yucca Mountain isn't the only issue. The core issue is whether laws we pass may be completely ignored by agencies if they think that some day they may not get enough money to finish the job. Allowing agencies to get away with this results in shifting more of our legislative powers to unelected agency bureaucrats. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Shimkus amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the 150th anniversary of an important community institution in Collinsville, Illinois. In 1862, the Wilkerson Chapel was founded in Collinsville, and for 150 years it has served the people of Collinsville; along the way becoming the oldest and only African Methodist Episcopal Church in Collinsville. The church was originally located at the corner of South and Clinton Streets, on a piece of land donated by Mrs. Josiah Peers. In 1922, Wilkerson Chapel moved to its present location at 317 Summit Avenue. The original land for the AME church was donated by a white woman in town, Mrs. Josiah Peers, and when the second location was built, the white churches in town donated such items as communion robes, a piano, and even the church bell. Marian Hoskin, an 81-year-old church member, talked about the harmony between the races which has always been an important part of Wilkerson Chapel's history, saying that, ``they always talk about this diversity situation here. And there was always prejudice on both sides of the fence. But we got along here. We have always worked together in this town.'' Today, Reverend Carl F. Berry is the current pastor, and under his leadership, Wilkerson Chapel continues its efforts to improve the lives of the citizens of Collinsville. The church continues its outreach efforts, which include open houses and cookouts, but also performances by Just Us and The Rest, the church choir, and work with the Collinsville Area Ministerial Alliance food pantry. Before the church's 150th anniversary banquet, Rev. Berry told the local paper, ``The community is there for the church and the church is very much there for the community. This is truly about us sharing ourselves. The doors to the church are always open for service to the community.'' I am proud to salute the 150 years of service by the parishioners of the Wilkerson Chapel, as well as the example they have set for our community. I am honored to represent such great people and such a great community like Collinsville.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come back to the floor again--this is my 13th time, really--doing a tour of the United States highlighting the locations where we currently store high-level nuclear waste in this country. With the end of this location, I will have placed in the Record the position of our U.S. Senators in each one of these States on where they stand on either keeping high-level nuclear waste in their State at their location or helping us move to a centralized repository at Yucca Mountain in the desert in Nevada. So let's go to the location. Here's Yucca Mountain, which is, by law, the site, based upon the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the amendments passed in 1987. So I'm comparing it to a place in Virginia very close by, the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station on North Anna Lake, which is a recreational lake that many people in Virginia know. Yucca Mountain right now has currently no nuclear waste on site. What about North Anna? North Anna has 1,200 metric tons of uranium, spent nuclear fuel, on site. If we had nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, where would it be? It would be stored 1,000 feet underground. Where is the nuclear waste stored at North Anna? It's stored above the ground in pools and in casks. If it was at Yucca Mountain, as designed by law, where would it be in comparison to the groundwater? Well, it would be a thousand feet above the water table because Yucca Mountain is in a desert. What about North Anna? Well, it is 53 feet above the groundwater. And as you can see from the photo, it's right next to a major lake in the Commonwealth of Virginia. If the waste was at Yucca Mountain, how far would it be from the largest body of water in the area? It would be 100 miles from the Colorado River. Again, from the photo, you see that North Anna is right next to the lake. So let's look at the Senators from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and in their time serving, what's their position on where the nuclear waste should be? Should it stay in the Commonwealth of Virginia or should it move to the desert underneath a mountain? Well, let's start with Senator Webb, who's not running for reelection. He's been in the Chamber now 5\1/2\ years. No stated position. It's kind of hard to believe you can be a U.S. Senator who has nuclear waste on site and does not have a stated position on whether you want nuclear waste stored right next to a recreational lake in your State or moved underneath a mountain in the desert. Senator Warner came 2 years after Senator Webb. He's been there 4 years. No stated position. Why is this concerning? Well, we go to the total tally of our 100 U.S. Senators based on either votes taken in the Senate or public statements rendered, and this is what we have as of today. Remember, I've come to the floor 13 different times identifying nuclear waste storage facilities all around the country. Most of the time they're generating stations. Sometimes they're Department of Defense waste sites like Hanford, Washington, which is the first place that I talked about. Based upon our tally, we have 55 votes for a high-level nuclear waste central repository at Yucca Mountain. We have 22 individuals--we noticed two today--who have never taken a position whether the high- level nuclear waste should be in their State, in their locality, or in the desert underneath a mountain. We also have 23 that have cast votes or made statements against that. Now, why is this tally important? Well, it only takes 60 votes to move a piece of legislation in the U.S. Senate, cloture debate based upon a filibuster than a simple majority vote. So the question is: When will these 22 Senators at least make some position statement on the high-level nuclear waste repository? Now, there are four other Senators that I've included in this--two from Alaska, two from Hawaii. They have no nuclear waste in their State. But Senator Begich from Alaska has no stated position. Senator Murkowski voted for the high-level nuclear waste storage site. She's also from Alaska. Senator Akaka voted ``no'' in a 2002 vote. Senator Inouye voted ``no'' in a 2002 vote. So that finishes the culmination of all the Senators. Based upon the problem in Japan with Fukushima Daiichi and the issue of high-level nuclear waste, isn't it about time we stop this administration's attack and move to Yucca Mountain?

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I've come back to the floor, as I have almost weekly since this Congress, to talk about nuclear waste. It's kind of unique to follow my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) because we are a nuclearized country; we do have nuclear weapons. A lot of our nuclear weapons were developed from World War II. And guess where the waste still is from World War II? Still buried in silos under the ground in Hanford, Washington. That's a legacy of 50 years of nuclear waste that we still have yet to address--not including the nuclear waste for fuel, which is what I'm going to talk about today. I'm going to the State of Michigan and the State of Indiana. Michigan has five nuclear reactors. They're all on the Great Lakes-- either Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, I think--and the waste is right next to these Great Lakes. So we want to do a comparison/contrast, as I do every week based upon a region of the country, and compare where the nuclear waste is in Michigan to where it should be, under Federal law-- the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the adjoining amendments passed in 1987--that says we need to consolidate our high-level nuclear waste and put it in one single repository that is underneath a mountain in a desert, and that place is Yucca Mountain. So let's compare the two locations. I'm picking the Cook Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan, comparing it to Yucca Mountain. How much nuclear waste do we have at Yucca Mountain? Zero. How much do we have at Cook? We have 1,433 metric tons of uranium--this is of waste-- at just one nuclear facility at Cook. Where is the waste stored? At Yucca, it would be 1,000 feet underground. Where is the nuclear waste stored at Cook? Well, it's stored above ground in pools and in casks. How is it compared to the groundwater issue? Well, at Yucca Mountain it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. As we know, at Cook it's 19 feet above the groundwater table. Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the only body of water you can find in a desert, and that's the Colorado River. That's 100 miles away. How far is the nuclear waste at Cook? Well, you can see from the picture it is next to Lake Michigan. So in a comparison/contrast, it's easy to see that Yucca would be a safer place to put high-level nuclear waste than Cook Generating Station in Michigan. So what have the U.S. Senators done from the surrounding States on this position of, should they have nuclear waste in their State or should they not? Senator Coats is supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Lugar is supportive of Yucca Mountain--I have quotes here that affirm that. Senator Levin has voted for Yucca Mountain and supports that. And our friend, my former classmate here in the Chamber--and she is a good friend of mine--Debbie Stabenow, has not supported Yucca Mountain. So part of why I'm coming down to the floor is just to help paint the picture that there is nuclear waste all over this country--104 different reactors, not including our defense waste--and it's stored all over the place. Wouldn't it be better to have a centralized location to put the nuclear waste in? So I've been doing a tally of U.S. Senators, and we finally got over the 50 Senator mark. Because of the Senate rules, you know you have to break the filibuster. That's 60 votes. It's interesting now, based upon the information, past information-- whether gleaned from votes or public statements--we have 54 U.S. Senators who say we ought to have Yucca Mountain as our single repository. We have 19 that we really have no record of a statement or a vote. And then we have 21 that have, either as a former House Member or a public statement, said, no, we don't think Yucca Mountain is a place for nuclear waste to go. We still have a couple more States to go, and we're hoping that we get to a 60-vote position to make the claim throughout the country that these Senators should really deal with this issue of high-level nuclear waste, not just the spent fuel, but, as we talked about earlier, the defense waste in this country. This was a promise made to the ratepayers of States that have nuclear power. The government said we're going to charge you extra for your electricity. We will take your money, and we will build a long-range geological repository for nuclear waste, and that's Yucca Mountain.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, before I talk about Yucca Mountain, let me just respond to my colleague from Virginia. Since 2002, food stamps have increased 267 percent, and this reconciliation bill will cut, I think, about 3 percent. Again, since 2002, food stamps have increased 267 percent. The Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years, so it's very difficult to admonish the House on the budget process when the Senate still has yet to pass a budget. And what we're really concerned about is the hollowing out of our military force. If the sequestration goes on as planned, we'll have the smallest Air Force in the history of this country that we've ever seen before the Air Force was enacted, the smallest Navy since, I believe, 1915, and a huge decrease in our standing force. That's what the debate is about, and I look forward to having that chance on the floor. As the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, one of my jurisdictional responsibilities is high-level nuclear waste. I've come to the floor numerous times to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, the various locations that we store high-level nuclear waste and compare it to where, by law, we should. By law, we should, based upon the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and an amendment in 1987, we should be storing it underneath a mountain in a desert. So let's compare that location to a place in Perry, Ohio. Perry, Ohio, has 452 metric tons of uranium of spent fuel on-site versus zero at Yucca Mountain. The waste is stored aboveground in pools and casks. The waste would be stored in Yucca Mountain 1,000 feet underground. The waste at Perry would be 12 feet above the groundwater. At Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. And at Perry, it is located on Lake Erie, 35 miles from Cleveland, where Yucca Mountain, the waste is 100 miles from the Colorado River and probably 100-or-so-odd miles from Las Vegas, Nevada. Clearly, in a comparison and contrast, if you want a safe and secure location--of course we also own the land around Yucca Mountain-- clearly, it's easy to determine that Yucca Mountain is a much safer place than on one of our Great Lakes. So then I talk about, well, have the Senators addressed this in their past? Because the reason why we're not moving forward on Yucca Mountain is Majority Leader Reid has stopped it, along with President Obama. Well, Senator Brown, when he was a House Member, voted for Yucca Mountain in 2002. So did Senator Portman. Both are Senators from the State of Ohio right now. Senator Mitch McConnell has stated, and so he supports Yucca Mountain: When it comes to nuclear energy, we have seen this administration abandon plans and millions in taxpayer dollars before without much consideration of the consequences. Take, for example, its unwillingness to follow through on the nuclear storage site, Yucca. We've already spent about $15 billion at Yucca Mountain, and Leader McConnell is addressing that issue. Senator Paul, so far, has been silent. We hope that he comes out with a stated position. So what does that do to our tally of where Senators are? And we've reached over the 50-vote mark, based upon our analysis of past statements and past votes. With 51 Senators who would vote ``yes,'' that would be a simple majority if the Senate moved by majority standards. Nineteen are undecided--Senator Paul is our recent add--and 20 who identify, based on their past statements, having voted ``no'' or have made statements in opposition to Yucca Mountain. Why is this important? It's important because we've spent over almost three decades now trying to find a safe, secure location to store high- level nuclear waste. With the Japanese event of last year, Fukushima Daiichi, and the debate on containment vessels and high-level nuclear waste, it is time now to move public policy, or the other body needs to impress upon Leader Reid that it is imperative for this country to have a centralized location. With these 51 and, hopefully, more that we will identify in the next couple of weeks, we will have close to a 60-seat identification to say it can stop a filibuster, it can stop the majority leader, and it can move to do what we all know is in our best interest: to finally gather up in one centralized location our high-level nuclear waste.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor again, as I have in the past 2 years, to talk about the location of high-level nuclear waste around this country and compare and contrast it with where we have high-level nuclear waste, mostly spent nuclear fuel, but other types defined as waste, and compare it to where it should be based upon a 1982 law, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the 1987 amendment to that law which identified Yucca Mountain as the location where we should be storing high-level nuclear waste. Today we go to the Pennsylvania and West Virginia areas, and we compare Yucca Mountain with a nuclear power plant called Limerick. At Yucca Mountain, currently there is no nuclear waste on site. At Limerick, there are 1,143 metric tons of uranium spent nuclear fuel on the site. At Yucca Mountain, the waste would be stored, if it's there, a thousand feet underground. At Limerick, you can see waste is stored aboveground in pools and casks. That's above ground. If it was stored in Yucca Mountain, it would be a thousand feet above the water table. Why is that? Well, Yucca Mountain is in a desert, so that's why the water table is very, very low. Well, at Limerick, the waste is stored 20 feet above the groundwater. Finally, Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Limerick is on the Schuylkill River 40 miles from Philadelphia. Yucca is about 100 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada. The importance of this is just to address with Fukushima Daiichi, and nuclear waste, and some difficulties we've had, and public policy being as defined by law. The question is, why do we still have nuclear waste in Pennsylvania right outside Philadelphia, and why don't we have it underneath a mountain in a desert? The answer is--I know it would shock people--politics here in Washington, especially in the other Chamber, not complying with the law, along with an administration that is in league with those who have blocked a final scientific study for Yucca Mountain. What I have been doing is going around and looking at the senators from the States around the nuclear power plants that I have been addressing. Where do they stand individually? Well, Senator Casey, a relatively new Senator, has really been silent on that, although he has said, as a Senator from a State with 9 commercial reactors and 10 million people living within 50 miles of those reactors, I can tell you that nuclear security is extremely important to Pennsylvanians. Obviously the nuclear waste is not that important to him since he has been silent on Yucca Mountain. Senator Toomey is quoted as saying the alternative is what we have now, highly active radio waste located at 131 sites in 39 States, including nuclear power plants close to the Lehigh Valley. That cannot be as safe and secure as burying the waste deep in Yucca Mountain. I would agree with the Senator. Senator Manchin from West Virginia, who is relatively new, has been silent on what we should do with the high-level nuclear waste. Part of this process is to identify that and hopefully have him come out in a statement. Senator Rockefeller voted ``no.'' His statement is, nuclear energy is touted by its proponents as a carbon-free option that should have its share of the Nation's electricity generation expanded. Yet we have never figured out what to do about the permanent storage and human health and safety concerns regarding high radioactive waste with a half-life measured in tens of thousands of years. That's where I very much disagree with the Senator, because the Federal Government has spent 20 years and $9 billion studying Yucca Mountain. Unprecedented 100 million-year projections were completed showing Yucca's safety. There is no safer place in the entire United States for nuclear waste than Yucca Mountain. So, then, I've been doing a tally across the country of the Senators and where they stand as of today. We have 48 who support Yucca Mountain and high-level nuclear waste; 18, we don't know. Hopefully, they'll get a chance to cast a vote. And we have 20 who are ``no.'' In the filibuster world that operates in the other Chamber, you know we really need 60. We're very close. In fact, if 12 of these 18 undecideds are ``yes,'' there should be no reason why we would allow Senator Reid and the President of the United States to block further development and movement to take all of our high-level nuclear waste and store it safely in a mountain in a desert.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor again to continue to identify and educate you on the various locations where we store high- level nuclear waste around this country and the various positions that our colleagues in the other Chamber have voted either for or against, in hopes that eventually the public will become well informed and that they will take action through their elected officials to do even what the Blue Ribbon Commission suggested, which is decide and locate a long-term geological storage facility. This is not new. We've been doing it for decades. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was established in 1982. The amendments were passed through this Chamber and signed into law in 1987, which identified a long-term geological repository at a place called Yucca Mountain in the desert in Nevada. What I've been attempting to do throughout this past year and a half--I chair a subcommittee that has direct responsibility for this-- is identify different locations. So today we go to a place very close to here. In fact, I think it's only 43 miles from the District of Columbia, and that's a place called Calvert Cliffs. I like to compare and contrast it with where our nuclear waste should be stored, not in a decade or two from now, but at this very moment where it should be. Calvert Cliffs is in Maryland, and at Calvert Cliffs there are 1,300 metric tons of uranium, of spent fuel, onsite versus Yucca Mountain, which is a mountain in a desert where we have no nuclear waste onsite. At Calvert Cliffs, this spent nuclear fuel is stored above the ground in pools and in casks above the ground. If it were stored at Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet underground. At Calvert Cliffs, the nuclear waste is stored 85 feet above the groundwater, and at Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. Finally, at Yucca Mountain, the nearest body of water is the Colorado River, about 100 miles. As you can see here in this photo, Calvert Cliffs is right next to Chesapeake Bay. Yucca Mountain is about 90 miles from Las Vegas, maybe 100 miles from Las Vegas. Calvert Cliffs is a straight line of 43 miles from Washington, D.C. The Senators from the surrounding areas, how did they vote? You would think they wouldn't want high-level nuclear waste next to Chesapeake Bay, 43 miles from the capital city. Well, Senator Carper voted ``no'' in 2002. Senator Coons, a new Member, we don't know his position. That's part of coming down here. I'm pretty sure that if the majority leader of the Senate would call a vote and this issue was thoroughly debated, it would pass on the floor of the Senate because we have a lot of Senators who have yet to declare their position. Here is Senator Cardin, a former Member of the House, who voted ``yea'' in 2002 for Yucca Mountain. Senator Mikulski, the same; different Chamber, voted ``no.'' How does our national tally go? Currently we have 47 U.S. Senators who have a stated position in support of Yucca Mountain. We have over 16 that have never cast a vote or declared their position on what we do with high-level nuclear waste, either spent fuel or nuclear waste, in the processing of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. We have 19 who have had a position of ``no'' at some time in their career. So it's very, very important to continue this debate, Mr. Speaker, to continue to come down on the floor to talk about the Federal law as it is to date. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed in 1982; the amendment was agreed to in 1987. The amendment identified Yucca Mountain as our long- term geological repository to store high-level nuclear waste. The time is well past since we should be doing this. In fact, we actually pay utilities to hold their nuclear waste since it's our responsibility to take the waste.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's been a couple of weeks since I've been able to come down to the floor and talk about high-level nuclear waste. As you know, through the past year, I've been coming to the floor. I am chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee. We have jurisdiction over a lot of different types of waste. One of those is nuclear waste. I also have come to the floor to just give a short history lesson on where we're at, where we should be, and the problems that stand in our way. In 1982, the national government passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In 1987 amendments were then offered that said we need to have a long-term geological repository and that repository should be Yucca Mountain. So I've been going around the country and looking at the different places where we have high-level nuclear waste, whether it's on the west coast, the State of Florida, Massachusetts, in the central part. Today I go to the State of Colorado, which has nuclear waste in the State, and I want to compare it to where it should be. As a review, Yucca Mountain is, by law, defined as the place where we should put high-level nuclear waste. Currently, there's no nuclear waste on-site. The waste would be stored a thousand feet underground. The waste would be a thousand feet above the water table because it's in a desert. And the waste is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Now, compare that to the nuclear waste that is at a location called Fort St. Vrain. Currently, there are 30 million tons of uranium, of spent fuel, on-site. The waste is stored above-ground in vaults. The waste is less than 25 feet above the groundwater, and the waste is 1 mile from the South Platte River. A mile from the South Platte River, 100 miles from the Colorado River. So part of this debate is, why haven't we moved and complied with Federal law? Well, we all know that. It's the Senator from the State of Nevada, who's made it his personal crusade to block our ability to proceed and has blocked funding for the final scientific study. This whole debate has moved into the political arena, not the arena of law, and in the U.S. Senate you really need 60 votes to move public policy. So I've been coming down to the floor and looking at Senators from States that surround Colorado and see where they have either declared their position or cast votes on the national repository, Yucca Mountain. As you see, from Texas, you've got Senator Cornyn, who's a yes; Senator Hutchison is a yes. Oklahoma, Senator Coburn's a yes; Senator Inhofe's a yes. New Mexico, Senator Bingaman has voted no. Senator Bennet from Colorado is new, hasn't really stated a position. We'd like to see him get on the record. My two friends, the Udall cousins, both Tom and Mark, we will check the record, but I believe that they've cast a vote in the Senate, and if not, they haven't stated a recent position. Why is that important? Because we've been tallying where the Senators are, and right now we really need 60 votes to come to conclusion. We've already spent $15 billion, and we have no nuclear waste on-site. Right now, based upon our calculations, we have 45 Senators that would support moving of high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. We have 17 who we don't know their position, and we have 16 who have stated or they have voted in the past as no. So our challenge here is to get these Senators on record and show the collective will. Now, we've done it in the House. We've had votes in the House in which we had about 300 Members of this Chamber, a bipartisan vote, in support of moving forward on the funding, the scientific funding to finally finish a single repository at Yucca Mountain. It's very important for our national security. It's very important for all the locations around. We already have 104 nuclear power plants in this country; all have nuclear waste on-site. We also have nuclear waste that's involved with our defense industry back at Fort St. Vrain. That waste was supposed to be transported to Idaho, but litigation has kept it there. If we don't move that waste, then by 2035 the Federal Government will have to pay the State of Colorado $15,000 a day until we take the responsibility that we have committed to as a national government. I appreciate this time, Mr. Speaker, to come down. We'll continue to get through all the U.S. Senators and attempt to try to get to the magic number of 60.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the village of Sainte Marie, Illinois, upon its 175th anniversary. Sainte Marie was founded in 1837 by immigrants from eastern France. They were a group of several related families, who, fearful of outside influences on the Church, decided to establish a colony in America, where they might practice their religion as they saw fit. To this end, they elected to send one of their children, Joseph Picquet, to find a suitable place for their settlement. At the time, Picquet was only 19 years old, but he was wise beyond his years. After arriving in America in 1835, Picquet lived briefly in Philadelphia, learning the language and local customs. He then spent most of 1836 exploring America and her vast wilderness. After extensive travel, he settled on a location for the colony in southern Illinois on the Embarras River, not far from Vincennes, Indiana. He chose the site for its untapped resources and the strong French presence in the area. Having found the site for the colony, Picquet then returned home to collect his family, and in June of 1837, Picquet and 24 of his relatives arrived in what would become the village of Sainte Marie. While preparing their settlement, they stayed on a nearby farm, and their construction efforts were blessed by Father Stephen Theodore Badin, the first priest to be ordained in the United States. On October 28, 1837, Picquet and the other settlers took possession of the land, which they dedicated to the Virgin Mary. They called it a Colonie des Freres, since they were all related by either blood or marriage. Largely due to Picquet's efforts, the colony quickly grew and became a cultural center for the region. It soon had such facilities as a saw mill, a post office, a church, a free school, and even a railroad station. The settlement was renamed Sainte Marie, retaining the spelling of their French heritage, and in 1865 Sainte Marie was officially chartered by the State of Illinois. Today Sainte Marie remains a charming rural community which teaches strong morals and family values. Its citizens are proud of their town and its history, as well as the many businessmen and professionals it has produced. This summer the people of Sainte Marie will honor the town's history and its citizens with its Quartoseptcentennial Celebration. In recognition of this momentous occasion, I ask my fellow members of this House to join with me as I wish them success in their upcoming festivities and in the years to come.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Breese Central High School Cougars upon winning the 2012 IHSA Class 2A Boys' State Basketball Championship. This victory is the perfect end to a remarkable season, in which the Cougars recorded 32 wins and only one loss. The Cougars beat the South Holland Sting to advance to the championship game, where they defeated the Normal Pioneers 53 47 and earned their first state championship. I would like to recognize Head Coach Stan Eagleson, Assistant Coaches David Thomas, Kurt Peters, Jeremy Shubert, Donny Petterson, and Ryan Meyer, Trainer Marty Stewart, and the players themselves: Justin Becker, Brandon Book, Nick Grapperhaus, Tanner Imming, Luke Jackson, Greg Meyer, Luis Perez, Austin Rickhoff, Kyler Scheer, Andrew Schulte, Noah Stockmann, Gavin Thomas, and Jacob Timmermann. Congratulations to the Breese Central Cougars for their championship and their incredible season. I look forward to next season, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Woodlawn High School Cardinals boys' basketball team, winners of the 2012 IHSA Class 1A State Championship. After a successful 27 5 season, the Cardinals entered this year's tournament, where they defeated the Winnetka Raiders to advance to the championship game against the Carrollton Hawks. In a closely fought match, the Cardinals came from behind in the fourth quarter to defeat the Hawks by a margin of 48 45 and earn their school the first state basketball championship in its history. My congratulations go to Head Coach Shane Witzel and Assistant Coach Scott Owens and the dedicated players of the 2012 State Champion Woodlawn Cardinals team: Ty Coleman, Jayson Hapeman, Kris Harlow, Christian Hollenkamp, Logan Issac, Matt Kennedy, Gabe Owens, Brendan Petersen, Chase Phelps, Ryan Richardson, Jake Robinson, Bryson Sanders, A.J. Webb, and Logan Wollerman. These student-athletes have made their community proud and have represented Woodlawn honorably. I congratulate them on their championship and wish them the best of luck next season.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Edwardsville Intelligencer, a local newspaper serving Madison County, Illinois, on its 150th anniversary. First called the Madison Intelligencer, the first weekly issue was published on November 13, 1862. It has been in continuous operation since, and it can proudly call itself Edwardsville's oldest business. In the last century and a half, the Edwardsville Intelligencer has expanded to daily publication and has covered all the pivotal moments in our nation's history. It has withstood the inventions of radio, television, and the internet and has recently expanded to include an e- Edition, which complements the print edition's continued success. During its long history, the Intelligencer has been an easily accessible source of information and culture in the region. It has a constant presence in the community. For decades it has participated in local charities and community events, and it even distributes newspapers to local schools at no charge. It is truly a vital resource for the greater Edwardsville area. I am pleased to congratulate the Edwardsville Intelligencer on its 150th anniversary, and I thank them for their contributions to the community. I wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. John Rowe, as the chairman and CEO of Exelon, is retiring upon closing of the company's merger with Constellation Energy. John joined Unicom, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, in 1998. He was hired to help fix its troubled nuclear fleet and prepare the company for deregulation. In both 2008 and 2009, Institutional Investor named John the best electric utility CEO in America. In the 14 years of John's leadership, Exelon has been named by Forbes as one of ``America's Best Companies,'' a ``Global 2000 Company,'' the ``Best Managed Utility Company,'' to Fortune's list of the World's Most Admired Companies, one of Businessweek's Top 50 companies, and Utility of the Year by Electric Light and Power. Throughout John's career, he has been an active leading voice in energy and environmental policy, delivering policy addresses and testifying before Congress, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and State regulators. John and his wife, Jeanne, are committed participants in civic and cultural activities. They are committed to a wide range of a variety of civic activities, with a focus on education and diversity. The Rowes are particularly proud of their substantial commitment to founding the Rowe-Clark Math and Science Academy. And he is a board of trustees chairman of the Illinois Institute of Technology. Mr. Speaker, I have come to know John Rowe during my tenure in Congress. I can say that his impact on the energy industry will be long felt by both policymakers and Exelon customers. I wish him and his family well in their future endeavors. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about someone that I have come to know through my work on the Energy and Commerce Committee over the years, John W. Rowe. Mr. John Rowe, the chairman and CEO of Exelon, is retiring upon closing of the company's merger with Constellation Energy. His retirement marks the end of nearly 14 years at Exelon and his 28-year tenure as the longest-serving electric utility CEO. It also brings to a close a long career in the utility business in which Rowe has distinguished himself as both an industry and civic leader. John joined Unicom, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison in 1998. He was hired to help fix its troubled nuclear fleet and prepare the company for deregulation. He shepherded the merger of Unicom and PECO Energy and has led the combined company, Exelon, since it formation in 2000. The Unicom-PECO merger is widely regarded as the most successful merger in the industry's history. The combined company serves 5.4 million customers and operates the largest fleet of nuclear power plants in the country. In both 2008 and 2009, Institutional Investor named Rowe the best electric utility CEO in America. He has also received the Edison Electric Institute Distinguished Leadership Award, Keystone Center Leadership in Industry Award, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce Burnham Award for Business and Civic Leadership, induction into the Chicago Business Hall of Fame, University of Arizona Eller College of Management Executive of the Year Award and the Union League of Philadelphia Founder's Award for Business Leadership. In the 14 years of John Rowe's leadership, Exelon has been named by Forbes as one of ``America's Best Companies,'' a ``Global 2000 Company,'' and ``Best Managed Utility Company'' to Fortune's list of the ``World's Most Admired Companies,'' one of BusinessWeek's ``Top 50'' companies, and ``Utility of the Year'' by Electric Light and Power. Mr. Rowe served as chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the Commercial Club of Chicago, and the Massachusetts Business Roundtable. Rowe and his management team succeeded in turning around the ComEd nuclear fleet--increasing the capacity factor from less than 50% in 1997 to more than 92% in every year since 2000 and average refueling outage days were reduced by half. Exelon today is the largest and widely regarded as the best nuclear plant fleet in the U.S. Responding to massive reliability issues in ComEd's service territory in 1998 and 1999, Rowe spearheaded the effort to improve system reliability that has helped reduce the frequency and duration of customer outages by 20% since 2001. ComEd has spent more than $5 billion on improving the system since 1998. ComEd now performs in the top quartile of its peer companies for reliability. Under Rowe's leadership, PECO has been an industry leader in reliability performance, moving from the top quartile to top decile in infrastructure modernization and the use of equipment to eliminate and reduce the length of outages for customers. Throughout his career, John has been a leading voice on energy and environmental policy delivering policy addresses and testifying before Congress, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, state regulators and other. He was a pioneer on industry efforts for utility restructuring and a fierce advocate for environmental stewardship and diversity. Perhaps more than any other CEO, Rowe has made environmental stewardship a hallmark of his tenure at each of his companies. While at CMP, he refocused its energy procurement strategy to conservation, energy efficiency and cogeneration. John and his wife Jeanne are committed participants in civic and cultural activities. They are committed to a wide variety of civic activities with a focus on education and diversity. The Rowes have established the Rowe Family Charitable Trust. Over the past decade, the Rowes and the family Trust have contributed more than $19.7 million to organizations including the University of Wisconsin, the Illinois Institute of Technology, the Chicago History Museum, the Field Museum, Misericordia, the Chicago Shakespeare Theater, Metropolitan Family Services and Northwestern Hospital. The Rowes are particularly proud of their substantial commitment to founding the Rowe-Clark Math and Science Academy, and is a Noble Street operated charter school and the Rowe Elementary School, a Northwestern University Settlement Association operated charter school. In addition, John Rowe serves as Chairman of New Schools Chicago, an organization that promotes and funds Charter Schools in the City of Chicago. Rowe also serves as Chairman of the board of trustees of the Illinois Institute of Technology and as President of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. He is a Vice Chairman of the Field Museum and has previously served as Chairman of the Commercial Club of Chicago and its Civic Committee and as Chairman of the board of the Chicago History Museum. While CEO of CMP, Rowe served as the Chairman of the Fort Western Museum capital campaign. At NEES, Rowe served as President of the USS Constitution Museum, Chairman of the Mechanics Hall capital campaign, a member of the board of the Massachusetts Natural Conservancy and on the board of Trustees at Bryant University. Under Rowe's leadership and strong belief that utilities can and must have a commitment to their communities, Exelon has become a major part of the social fabric of the communities it serves. Exelon companies granted over $270 million to non-profit organizations serving our communities over the last eleven years including a $70 million donation to fund the Exelon Foundation. Since the program's inception in late 2005 Exelon employees have tracked over 318,000 hours of community service. Exelon employees serve on over 350 non-profit boards across the service area, making an impact at the community level. In recognition of Rowe's dedication to the community he has received the Civic Federation of Chicago's Gage Award for Outstanding Civic Leadership, the Citizen of the Year award from the City Club of Chicago, and the Heart of Mercy Award from Misericordia. Under his leadership, Volunteer Match has recognized Exelon as the Corporate Volunteer Program of the Year. Exelon has also received the Ron Brown Award for Corporate Leadership and was named to Corporate Responsibility Magazine's Best Corporate Citizens. Mr. Speaker, I have come to know John Rowe over my tenure in Congress and I can say that his impact on the energy industry will be long felt by both policy makers and Exelon's customers. I wish him and his family well in their future endeavors.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I too come to the well to address a tragedy that happened this morning. Early this morning, an F 4 tornado hit the city of Harrisburg, Illinois, in my district. There was extensive damage, and six residents lost their lives. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who lost family and friends, those who were injured, and those who lost their homes. I plan to visit Harrisburg personally tomorrow and thank all those first responders who have been working tirelessly to care for the injured and to begin the long road back to clean up. The mutual aid provided by the surrounding communities is also very heartwarming. I pledge to work with Mayor Eric Gregg and other local officials to rebuild the Harrisburg we all know and love.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come back to the floor again this week to continue to talk about high-level nuclear waste and its location around the country. This week really saddens me because, in the weeks past when I've identified the U.S. Senators from the appropriate States, usually I would have more in support of moving their high-level nuclear waste out of their State than who wants to vote to keep it in their State. As I go to Connecticut today and the States surrounding Connecticut, it is really amazing how many Senators have gone on record to say, No, it is okay; we will just keep this nuclear waste in our State for 15, 20, 25 more years. With that, let's look at the options we have here. The nuclear power plant that I'm addressing today is called Millstone. It is in Connecticut. I always like to compare it to where the high-level nuclear waste should be, which is underneath a mountain, in a desert in Nevada, at Yucca Mountain, where, in 1987, we passed into law and said Yucca Mountain will be the location for our high- level nuclear waste. It is the law of the land. How have we done? How much nuclear waste is at Yucca Mountain, this mountain in the desert? We don't have any. We've already spent $15 billion. The waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground. The waste would be stored 1,000 feet above the water table. The waste would be 100 miles from the nearest body of water, which would be the Colorado River. Well, let's compare it to Millstone in Connecticut. Right now, Millstone has 1,350 million tons of uranium spent nuclear fuel on site. The waste is stored in pools and in dry casts. The waste is 15 to 20 feet from the water table. It is on Niantic Bay, just off Long Island Sound. Here's a picture. Here's the nuclear power plant; here's the bay. It's right next to the water. And without moving forward on Yucca Mountain, this waste will continue to be stored there 15, 20, 25 more years. So let's look at the Senators from the surrounding States that border this body of water. We have Senator Blumenthal--new. He said in a campaign interview that he opposed Senator Reid's fight to prevent Yucca Mountain, so we put him in the ``yes'' column. Senator Lieberman voted ``no'' in 2002, so we put him in the ``no'' column. Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey voted ``no'' on the Senate Appropriations Committee amendment to restore funding, so we put him in the ``no'' column. Senator Menendez from New Jersey has been a vocal critic, and so he's in the ``no'' column. Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator from New York, we have her as undecided. We're kind of waiting for her to take a position. Part of this debate is to at least get Senators on the record somehow to see where they will be on this position. Senator Schumer--obviously fairly close to Connecticut and New York City--he had voted ``no'' in '02. Senator Jack Reed--actually a pretty good friend of mine--from Rhode Island voted ``no'' in 2002. Senator Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, we have as really ``undecided.'' Two ``undecided,'' a whole bunch of ``nays,'' and one ``yes.'' So how does that do for our totality of where Senators are at this time based upon the information we have? Well, we have 41 Senators who say we need to move high-level nuclear waste out of our State to a desert underneath a mountain. We have 14 that we really have no public record on. We'd like to see the Senate sometime take a vote and figure out where they might be. And we have 15 ``nays.'' Now, why is this important? The Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 said: Let's find a single repository. The Blue Ribbon Commission, which testified before my committee just last week, said: We need a long-term geological repository. As I quoted in a story yesterday, Brent Scowcroft, the cochair, said: We're not excluding Yucca Mountain, but we have so much nuclear waste now that we're going to have to find a second location. So you can continue your fight on Yucca Mountain, but the Blue Ribbon Commission said we need a long-term geological storage centralized. We're just saying we already have one. If we're going to need a second one, then we better start that process of looking at a second one, but we ought to start filling up the first one. We spent $15 billion. And why aren't we moving forward? Well, we have the majority leader of the Senate who says no. In fact, my colleague, Mr. Clyburn, was quoted in a paper as saying: As long as Harry Reid is alive, Yucca is dead.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor the achievement of the boys basketball team from my high school and hometown, my Collinsville Kahoks. On January 21st of this year, the Kahoks recorded their 2000th victory, becoming only the second team in Illinois and the third in the country to reach this great milestone. This achievement is the result of the combined efforts of more than one hundred years of Collinsville players, coaches, and families. These are today's Collinsville Kahoks: Jaris Wellmaker, J'Vaughn Williams, Jacob Shaffer, Falando Wilkinson, Briley Kellison, Jared Blasingame, Chris Mathes, Devonta Crochrell, Daryn Foster, Jason Kusnerick, Travis Dunnette, Tanner Houck, Caleb Johnson, Sean Davis, Kelyn Conner, and Coaches Darin Lee and Eric Anderson. These players and coaches have proven beyond a doubt that they can uphold our tradition of success, a tradition forged by past players such as Bob Bone, who set the all-time scoring record at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and also coached the Kahoks for twenty years, and other players such as Kevin Stallings, who went on to play at Purdue and now serves as head coach at Vanderbilt University. But the one man most responsible for our tradition of excellence was the legendary coach of the Kahoks for thirty-three years, the late Vergil Fletcher. In his tenure, Coach Fletcher amassed 747 victories, leading the team to twenty conference championships and two State titles, one of which included an undefeated season. Coach Fletcher was an excellent coach and an exemplary role model, and we can only imagine how proud he would be today. May we all find the same measure of success. And so once more I congratulate my Collinsville Kahoks, and I extend my gratitude to all those who helped make this achievement possible. I wish them continued good fortune in their future endeavors.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Before my Pennsylvania friends get all freaked out, I appreciate you letting me come to the floor for 5 minutes to do what is now a weekly constitutional of mine and talk about high level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. What I have been doing, to set the stage, is going around the country highlighting locations where there's nuclear waste throughout this country, and just making the statement that it is in the national interest, and actually it's national Federal law that this waste be consolidated in a centralized storage facility. And so with that, I'll begin. Today we're headed to the great State of Minnesota, and we're looking at a nuclear power plant called Prairie Island. Now, Prairie Island has 725 million tons of uranium, of spent fuel, onsite. Prairie Island has waste stored above the ground in pools and dry casks. Prairie Island is in the Mississippi River floodplain, as you can see from the photo here. And Prairie Island is 50 miles from the Twin Cities. Now, where should this waste be? Well, this waste should be where an 1982 energy policy, the Waste Policy Act, and then the amendments in 1987 said, by Federal law, it should be, which is underneath a mountain in a desert. And where is that mountain? The mountain's called Yucca Mountain. Currently, after $15 billion spent researching and preparing the site, we have zero nuclear waste onsite. If we were storing the nuclear waste there, it would be 1,000 feet underground. It would be 1,000 feet above the water table, and it would be 100 miles from the nearest body of water, which would be the Colorado River. Now, look at the difference between Yucca Mountain, 100 miles from the Colorado River, versus nuclear waste right next to the Mississippi River, actually in the Mississippi River floodplain. So, why aren't we doing what the law has dictated? Well, we have the majority leader of the Senate who's been blocking funding and stopping any movement to do the final scientific study. In fact, the will of the House was spoken last year when we voted, I think, 297 votes, bipartisan votes, to complete the funding and the study. So let's look at the Senators from the region of where this nuclear power plant is. And it's very curious: The two Senators from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken, they're silent. They're silent on nuclear waste in their own State. It's very curious. Not only nuclear waste, but nuclear waste on the river. And then you go to North Dakota. Senator Conrad has voted ``no.'' Senator Hoeven supports it. South Dakota, Senator Johnson voted ``no.'' This is all in the region. Senator Thune supports. Senator Nelson votes in support of Yucca Mountain. Senator Johnson votes in support of Yucca Mountain. Now, Minnesota has two sites, three reactors; two of them are right in this location. So, as I've been coming down to the floor, if you add these new Senators to the total tally, right now we have 40 Senators who have expressed support for moving high-level nuclear waste. We have 12 who are curiously silent on nuclear waste in their State or in their region, and we have 10 who have stated a position of ``no.'' It's in the best interest of our country, for the safety and security of this country, that we consolidate in a centralized location, underneath a mountain, in a desert, in the defined spot by law, which is Yucca Mountain. And again, I want to thank my colleagues and friends from Pennsylvania for allowing me to intrude upon their hour. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of an American hero from Springfield, Illinois. Lyman L. Hubbard, Sr. passed away on January 12, 2012 at the age of 85. One of the Tuskegee Airmen, Mr. Hubbard graduated as a command pilot from Tuskegee Army Air Base during World War II, and he dedicated his life to serving our great nation. Known as a strong leader, Mr. Hubbard flew in multiple combat tours in Southeast Asia and earned numerous U.S. and foreign military decorations. Upon retiring in 1970, Mr. Hubbard had flown nearly 7000 hours over a more than 20 year career in the Air Force. Mr. Hubbard was also dedicated to the history of his community and his nation, as shown in 2005, when he saved from potential destruction one of the first African-American orphanages in the nation, the Lincoln Colored Home in Springfield. I want to extend my condolences, and those of my colleagues in this House, to the family and friends of Lyman Hubbard, Sr., a patriot and true hero who will be missed by all who knew him.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership for allowing me this time to come to the floor. I'm going to do two short items, and then I'll address the weekly discussion on high-level nuclear waste and Yucca Mountain. First, because of this day and our focus on the sacrifice of our colleague Gabby Giffords, let me update my colleagues on Senator Mark Kirk's progress, since he was a former colleague in this Chamber. Senator Kirk's early prognosis is good, and his doctors are pleased with his progress at this point. As the Senator continues his recovery, his offices will remain open to constituents. I will just add very similarly, Congresswoman Giffords' staff continued to do the best job they could to serve the constituents of her congressional district. While she was unable to attend to many events, staff really did pick up the ball and carry it for her, as Senator Kirk's staff will continue to do for the State of Illinois. During Mark's five terms in the House of Representatives and his first in the Senate, Senator Kirk has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. From traveling around the State holding town halls, to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to build consensus on key issues, to traveling overseas to advocate for strengthening America's security in relationships with foreign nations, Senator Kirk has demonstrated endless energy and dedication in public service. I have no doubt that he will return to the Senate with the same zeal and passion for his job that he had when he first entered this Chamber 12 years ago. Tribute to Frank Cook

Mr. SHIMKUS. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It's an organization designed around legislators from all of our NATO countries. It's been in existence over 50 years. Since the legislative bodies in most chambers are the funding for the military, it's important that the legislative body talks about NATO's role in the past, in the present, and in the future. During my time as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I became great friends with a member of the British Parliament who recently passed away, and I would like to pay tribute to him. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my British friend and colleague, Frank Cook, who passed away on January 12. Frank was a longtime colleague of mine in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. As you know, the Assembly brings together Members of Congress with their counterparts from Canada and Europe to talk about issues that concern us all. As a leading member of the Defense Security Committee, Frank Cook made vital contributions in debates in the Assembly from the mid- 1980s to 2010 on issues as wide ranging as Afghanistan, arms control with Russia, NATO's operation in Kosova, and its relations with Ukraine and other partners. He also served as vice president of the Assembly. Frank embodied the spirit of the transatlantic alliance. He was never shy to express his opinions with a clear mind and a sharp wit. Even when Frank and I disagreed on policy, we remained friends and allies because we shared the values that underpin NATO: freedom, democracy, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law. We both believed that the NATO Alliance was critical to our collective security and defense, and that we as legislators in our own countries needed to do everything we could to make sure it was capable of meeting the threats we face in the 21st century. I can recall many unforgettable experiences I've shared with Frank. I observed him lead a forceful debate on controversial issues and get all sides mad, like a debate he led on Nagorno-Karabakh in Quebec in 2006. He and I took incoming artillery fire from the Taliban in Kandahar Airfield in 2007. During the summer of 2010, we visited Greenland together. We visited a military encampment called Point North, which is north of the Arctic Circle. The dogs there pull sleds and provide early warning for polar bears. They appear quite scary, but Frank was the first to amble up and pet them. Frank was a throwback to a time when characters could be listed--and by being listed, in parliamentary speak, that means being put on the party list for election--so Frank was a throwback to a time when characters could be listed and serve constituencies. But perhaps my most memorable experience was when Frank would regularly treat us with the best performance of ``My Way'' since Old Blue Eyes himself--not a small feat for a Brit. I learned a great deal from him, and he will be deeply missed by many of his friends at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and here in Congress. Now to the business at hand, Mr. Speaker. Again, thank you for letting me come down once again to talk about a very pressing and important issue in this country, one that I'm going to continue to use the bully pulpit for to help educate my colleagues, the public as a whole, even you, Mr. Speaker, on the need to address the issue of high-level nuclear waste in this country. It's an issue that has been around since the development of the nuclear weapon system that we used to win World War II. Some of that waste is still there from that time, and it still sits in the same location of 40-50 years ago. It has hit the international stage with the experience that Japan has had in Fukushima Daiichi and the tsunami, not just the generating facilities themselves but what happened to the nuclear waste on-site, and an international nuclear disaster that still is making it difficult for our allies in Japan and really causes us to make sure that we look at our systems and understand what is our national policy on high-level nuclear waste and why we are not moving forward. What I've done in my times coming to the floor is go around the country and highlight where nuclear waste sites are and compare it to where we, by Federal law, have stated our nuclear waste should be stored. This is all under the 1982 Energy Policy Act, and a site was located under that law in 1987. So let's go through the area for a brief review. This is what happens when we no longer have pages on the House floor to help us. The first site I visited personally was in Washington State and the site is called Hanford, which was a good place to start in this tour of where nuclear waste is because the vast majority of nuclear waste stored here is Department of Defense and Department of Energy waste that was used to develop our nuclear weapons systems during World War II. There are 57 million gallons of nuclear waste on-site, mostly in large tanks of 750,000 to a million gallons each. The waste is stored 10 feet underground. The waste is 250 feet above the water table, and the waste is 1 mile from the Columbia River. And something that is not listed there, some of that waste is leaking from the tanks. So let's compare it to the site that we have decided by law to establish, which is Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain has currently no nuclear waste on-site. The waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground. The waste is 1,000 feet above the water table, and the waste would be 100 miles from the Colorado River. Nuclear waste next to the Columbia River or nuclear waste stored underneath a mountain in a desert? That is site number one. Next, not to pick on other States to the exclusion of mine, the next location I talked about was the Zion power plant, decommissioned, high- level nuclear waste still on-site. Let's compare it to Yucca Mountain. Sixty-five casks containing 1,135 metric tons of nuclear waste, the waste is stored above the ground, 5 feet above the water table and 1,300 feet from Lake Michigan. And, of course, this is Lake Michigan right there. Part of the time what I've been doing is highlighting a location and then looking at the States surrounding. The State of Wisconsin has two nuclear power plants, both on Lake Michigan similarly located. Of course, the stats for Yucca Mountain are the same. Let me add here that we have already spent $15 billion to study this site of Yucca Mountain, 20 years in the making; and we still wait. I'm not sure if this is still in the proper order that I have come down to the floor, but the next nuclear power plant that I wanted to highlight was San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Now, this one is in California, and it's right next to the Pacific Ocean on the opposite side from where Japan is. You can see the waves, and you can see how close it is to the Pacific Ocean. At this power plant, there are 2,300 waste rods on-site. The waste is stored above the ground and in pools, and it's adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, as I said, and 45 miles from San Diego. Yucca is 90 miles to 100 miles from Las Vegas, and it's also located on government property the size of the State of Rhode Island. It's controlled by a couple of entities, the Department of Energy being one, the Bureau of Land Management being another, and the third one, it is a nuclear test site where we tested nuclear weapons years ago. I didn't mention Zion nuclear power plant. Zion is located about 45 miles from Chicago, Illinois. There is another nuclear power plant, and that is located in Massachusetts. As you can see, it's next to Cape Cod, the Pilgrim generating facility. There are 2,918 spent fuel assemblies on-site. Waste is stored above the ground in pools. And why is that important? Part of the problem in Fukushima Daiichi was that there was waste stored in pools. Because of the disaster, we're not really sure what happened. Either the foundation was cracked and the coolant water left the pond, or the power went off, the water couldn't circulate, the heat by the rods evaporated the water, then the heat on heat caused the rods to, in essence, start to melt, which is a very dangerous situation. So much of our nuclear waste throughout this country is stored in pools around the country. Why is that important? Because it's our national policy, based upon a law passed in 1982, followed up by the location site in '87, that we are to have one geological repository, not nuclear waste stored all over this country; but we would have one centralized location. Now, it's important to add that in the next couple of days, the Blue Ribbon Commission is going to come out with a report, and we think it's going to say that it's in the national interest to have one geological repository for high-level nuclear waste. And we await, with interest, that report. Now we go to Idaho National Labs, a Federal national laboratory in Idaho. Comparing it to where nuclear waste would be stored if we would continue to comply with Federal law, we have in Idaho there 5,090 canisters of waste. A good point to note on this waste, a lot of this waste, again, is from the research done on nuclear power and nuclear weapons systems. And in that process, you create waste. In Hanford, as they're trying to decide what to do with the waste, the containment systems to transport the waste have all been designed with the plan to store in Yucca Mountain. So when you look at the 53 million gallons in Hanford, and we're going to move that waste out of Washington State and into Yucca, time, effort, energy, and money has gone in to preparing the technology to move this waste and store it in Yucca Mountain, similar to Idaho National Labs. Currently, though, we have 5,090 canisters on-site, waste is stored above the ground, waste is 500 feet above the water table, and the waste is 50 miles from Yellowstone National Park. Then we go to the great Southeast in the State of Georgia, and we look at the Savannah generating station where you have 6,300 canisters of nuclear waste on-site, water is stored right below the ground zero to 160 feet above the water table. And as you can see from the photo, it's right next to the Savannah River. Part of the debate that the environmental left and anti-nuclear folks told us about is water in the desert and how it's going to affect nuclear waste. And part of the educational process that I've learned going through the different sites is you really can't find a nuclear power site--and, of course, all nuclear waste generated is still on- site--that's not close to a body of water. So that's this whole issue about would you rather have it next to a body of water or would you rather have it in a desert. I think that debating point is pretty clear. So that's Savannah generating station versus Yucca Mountain. Right before the end of last year, I came down on the floor and the location that I was to talk about next--of course, I got off topic a little bit and didn't really clarify and identify--is Turkey Point. Turkey Point is in the State of Florida. And, of course, again, we're comparing it to Yucca Mountain. At Turkey Point, you have 1,074 metric- ton vehicles of spent fuel on-site. The waste is stored above the ground in pools. Waste is on the Biscayne Bay at sea level, and the waste is 10 miles from the Everglades versus Yucca Mountain. Again, defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Yucca was established by Federal law, by this Chamber and the other Chamber and the President of the United States in 1987. Yucca Mountain is in a desert; the storage site would be underneath a mountain in that desert far away from any population that would be immediately affected. Another location that I was to address last week, which I also got off topic, is the Sequoyah Nuclear Generating Station. Sequoyah is in Tennessee, but it's right on the South Carolina border. At Sequoyah, there are 1,094 metric-ton vehicles of spent fuel on-site. The waste is stored above ground in pools in dry casks, waste is 25 feet from the groundwater, and waste is 14 miles from Chattanooga on Chickamauga Lake. What I've done once we get to new States that I haven't really identified is then I've gone and looked at the Senators' past statements and/or their voting record on this because we had a vote on the floor this year on whether we should move forward with the dollars to finish the final scientific study by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and that vote was 297 ``yes.'' Now, there's only 435 Members in this Chamber; a huge bipartisan vote that really sent a signal of where the will of this Chamber is. So why can't we move forward? The issue is the majority leader of the Senate happens to be from the State of Nevada. And to really get the Senate to move, you have to hold the Senators from these States accountable, or at least for them to state a position as to where they stand on where the nuclear waste currently is, and really what is the proposal and what should we do with it. So having done that before, I then look at the Senators from the State of Tennessee and the State of North Carolina. Senator Alexander is a ``yes.'' Senator Corker is a ``no.'' Senator Burr is a ``yes.'' A ``yes'' is let's move our nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain in a desert underneath a mountain. Senator Hagan is silent. What do I mean by ``silent''? We couldn't find any public statements. Of course, the Senate has not cast a vote. So we hope maybe the Senator will sometime make her position known, but as for now we will list her as being silent. Again, why is that important? Because we really need to find out where the Senators are. Under the Senate rules, to break a filibuster you have to have 60 votes. So I'm hoping that through this process we will finally tally them up, which is what I'll do at the end of my time, and kind of show you where we are so far. Now, I still have a couple of places around the country to address. Remember that these are just one--many States like mine. I've pointed out Zion, but we actually have six sites and 11 reactors. Illinois has a huge nuclear power plant. Fifty percent of our electricity comes from nuclear power. So even though I'm mentioning a few, you can multiply that by three, as far as how many nuclear power plants are out there. And equivalently, if there is a nuclear power plant in your State, then your State is the storage site for nuclear waste right now. The State that I came to the floor on to highlight today and the region is the State of Arkansas and the State of Missouri. Now, Missouri, as I know--I'm from Illinois. I'm from southern Illinois. I know the State of Missouri well. The State of Missouri has a nuclear power plant called Callaway. So the same thing I'm mentioning here on this power plant in Arkansas you can make for the Callaway plant. So let's look at the one we've chosen, which is a power plant called Nuclear One. Again, Nuclear One has 1,260 MTBs of spent fuel on site versus none at Yucca Mountain. Nuclear One has waste stored above the ground in pools and dry casts. Obviously, there's no nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, but if there were, where would it be stored? It would be stored 1,000 feet underneath the ground. Nuclear One has waste adjacent to a water supply. Of course, you can see the photo right here. As I've highlighted, in almost every nuclear power plant or waste site there's water nearby. Well, of course Yucca Mountain is in a desert, so the waste would be stored 1,000 feet above the water table. Nuclear One has waste on Lake Dardanelle, a reservoir on the Arkansas River. Now, what's a reservoir? I think, by definition, a reservoir is a body of water that you've created to hold water for public use, whether that's for recreation or for drinking and stuff. So there you have, you've got Nuclear One right on this reservoir. Now, what about the Senators from the State of Arkansas? I mean, are they happy with this nuclear waste on site? So let's look at their positions. We actually have a few other States represented, too. First, from the State of Arkansas, we have Senator Boozman, one of our former colleagues, has a stated position and cast votes in support of Yucca Mountain. Senator Pryor, as far as we can tell, is silent. From Iowa, Senator Grassley is a ``yes.'' Senator Harkin is not only silent, he's a ``no.'' So not sure why that would be, maybe because Iowa doesn't have nuclear power plants in the State of Iowa, but there's definitely some around there. It must be his position that nuclear waste stored around this country is okay. Then you go to the State of Kansas. Another colleague, former colleague, Senator Moran, has voted ``yes'' on Yucca Mountain as a good place to put high-level nuclear waste in a single repository. Senator Roberts, also a ``yes'' vote. From the State of Missouri, another former colleague of ours, Senator Blunt is a ``yes'' on moving high- level nuclear waste from the State of Missouri to a desert underneath a mountain. Senator McCaskill is silent on this, which, again, since I'm next door to the State of Missouri, I know that the Callaway nuclear power plant is in the State of Missouri, and Senator McCaskill is silent on that issue. So what's our scorecard? Where are we at with going around the country? Because remember, Mr. Speaker, because of the Senate rules, we have to get to 60 to really push something through. So we've identified what we believe is actually 36 ``yes'' votes so far. We've identified actually 10. This should be updated. We have 10 that we really don't know their position; in other words, they have no public statement or they have not cast a vote. And then we have eight definite ``noes,'' which means they have made public statements in opposition to moving nuclear waste underneath a mountain in a desert or they've cast a vote somewhere in some type or signed a letter. We're happy to be corrected on any of this analysis of where Senators are, but I think it's time that we start to get some accountability in this process. Why have we not moved forward on Yucca Mountain? And the answer is pretty clear that when this administration was running for the Presidency, he, wanting to get support from the senior Senator from the State of Nevada, promised not to move forward. That's fine. It was a political decision. He's holding to his commitment to do that at the cost of what? Nuclear waste being held across this country, in States around this country, in places that, after Fukushima Daiichi, you might argue might not be the best place to have this nuclear waste. So the President and the Majority Leader of the Senate has placed this in the political realm. Elections have consequences. We're approaching an election cycle. There will be Senators on the ballot in November. What is their position on what their State, and what should be the national position on what we do with high-level nuclear waste. So we do know we've got a lot who are on record saying nuclear waste ought to go in a single repository in a desert underneath a mountain. We do believe that the Blue Ribbon Commission this week will say this country needs a single repository. We do have 10 Senators that we do not know their positions; and, to their credit, we have eight that we do know their position in opposition. But it looks, from being a casual observer, and if the trend continues, that we're getting close to a majority of U.S. Senators that say that we should have a single repository, and that single repository should be what's been identified under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the following legislation in 1987 that said Yucca Mountain is the site. Why is this important? Fukushima Daiichi is example number one, the health and wellness of our citizens, the location of all of this nuclear waste. We have to continue to highlight these concerns because the nuclear waste isn't going away. In fact, we have got some nuclear power plants being constructed right now. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, they will start generating. When they do, they will start creating nuclear waste, and that nuclear waste is going to have to go somewhere. The question that we have highlighted throughout this year we'll finish in a couple of months. Should that be in all these States and all these locations, or should it be at a single repository? Mr. Speaker, I look forward to coming down numerous times in the future to continue to identify each State, each Senator, and then allow the public access to the information so that they can make a decision if this is an important criteria in this next election cycle. I hope that the answer would be yes so that we would follow up on a national policy to deal with high-level nuclear waste. We have only spent $15.5 billion in over 20 years to identify Yucca Mountain as a site. If we were to try to find a new site, we throw away the $15 billion, the 20 years of research, and we will have to have another 20-year time for research and development and another $15 billion to get to the same location we are today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's great to be back down on the floor, back to being in Washington, DC, to continue with what I spent most of my time last year doing, which was addressing the high-level nuclear waste issues in this country. Today, we go to the great State of Tennessee, and identify a location where there is presently high-level nuclear waste stored and compare that to the site that was picked and that is in Federal law right now, which is the high-level nuclear waste depository scheduled to occur in Yucca Mountain. First of all, this is Sequoyah in Tennessee, where there are over 1,094 MTU of spent nuclear fuel onsite. At Yucca Mountain, which is in the desert in Nevada, there is currently no nuclear waste onsite. At Sequoyah, the waste is stored above the ground in pools and dry casks. If we were to put it in Yucca Mountain, where it is supposed to go, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground--underneath, in essence, a mountain. At Sequoyah, the waste is 25 feet from the groundwater table. At Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table, and Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Sequoyah is 14 miles from the city of Chattanooga and 14 miles from Chickamauga Lake. So why do I highlight these issues? Because of what happened in Japan with Fukushima Daiichi and the high-level nuclear waste. A lot of the nuclear exposure was because pools had dried up. The nuclear waste heated up, and then you had almost a worldwide catastrophe right next to the ocean. If we were doing what was public policy in Federal law in collecting our high-level nuclear waste and taking it to a desert underneath a mountain, that would be a much more secure location than around our major municipalities, our streams, and our groundwater locations. But, no, because of this administration and some political promises made in the last election cycle, they have defunded and pulled off the table Yucca Mountain from consideration. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act made the Federal Government responsible for checking waste. Since that time, $9 billion and 20 years was spent studying for a suitable location. That study ended in Yucca Mountain. In 1987 Congress named Yucca Mountain the sole candidate site for a permanent repository, and then in '94 DOE published scientific results demonstrating Yucca as capable of protecting public health and safety; in '98, the statutory deadline for DOE to commence disposal of spent nuclear fuel. So we pay these nuclear utilities money to hold their own waste that we should be collecting based upon Federal law. In 2002 we voted here, and the President and Congress approved Yucca as the site repository. DOE issued a license application in 2008, and then in 2009 President Obama announced plans to terminate Yucca Mountain after $15 billion spent in studying this site. And I'll close with this: Would you rather have nuclear waste 14 miles from a major metropolitan area next to a lake or would you rather have high-level nuclear waste hundreds of miles from the major, largest city, 100 miles from a river, underneath a mountain, in the desert? Public policy, good public policy demands that we move forward on Yucca Mountain.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it is important that as soon as we get back here today, it is our first day back, that we get back on the focus of creating jobs in this country. And not jobs that government says we can create, but sustainable jobs that are created by the private sector; private capital assuming risk, hoping for a return to get economic growth. There's no better opportunity to do that than with the Keystone XL pipeline. This is what we're talking about. Here's the oil up here in Edmonton. There's already a pipeline that goes down into my district actually, Patoka, a refinery in Wood River, and a new refinery also in the central eastern part of the State of Illinois. The Keystone XL would be this blue line, which will bring more crude. Why do we need another pipeline, a bigger pipeline? Because there's so much crude oil up there in Canada, and they really don't have the ability to refine it, they really don't have the ability to market it. Let's get this crude to U.S. refineries so that we can then access it to our markets. The great thing about the folks from the Midwest, as you had Mr. Terry, you had Mr. Latta, we already understand the benefits of the Keystone pipeline because we're already receiving the product to our refineries. This is the oil sands. It's just oil that coats sand. And they boil it off, they recover the froth, they turn it into a liquid product called bitumen. And then it eventually gets turned into synthetic crude, and that's what we're talking about. The third-largest oil reserves in the world are right here. How do you get it? A lot of times you do it through surface mining. Here's an example. Now the trucks are actually a little bit bigger in the mining operation, they're about seven stories tall--the tires are at least one story tall--built by a U.S. company called Caterpillar, located in Illinois. And that's where many--50 percent--of all these heavy dump trucks go, to mining operations around the world. One of their bigger markets right now is right in Canada. Robinson Oil Refinery is the other refinery in Illinois. It's receiving the oil sands product, moving it into a product to meet to the market. So these are real jobs at a real time that will create real jobs--20,000 immediately, and as my colleagues have said, ancillary jobs. You have pumping stations. You need to build the pumps. You've got to have the electricians that operate it. So this is something--private capital, return on investment, energy security. The President says he believes in the free flow of oil when he's trying to address Ahmadinejad in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. There's no better free flow of oil than permitting the Keystone XL pipeline. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, what does the Iranian nuclear threat to Keystone XL pipeline and the payroll unemployment insurance, doc fix, and jobs bill all have in common? Well, I'm going to use this 5 minutes to tie them together. Yesterday on the floor, we addressed a concern of the Iranian nuclear threat. We did so with two pieces of legislation: H.R. 1905, the Iranian Threat Reduction Act; and H.R. 2105, the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act. Why did we bring these bills to the floor? We brought these bills to the floor because of our concern of a nuclear Iran that has threatened its neighbors and one of our closest allies, Israel. So what's the Iranian response? Well, I would turn your attention, Madam Speaker, to an article published yesterday, December 13, from FOXNews.com, with the title, ``Iranian Official Threatens Military Drill Sealing Off the Strait of Hormuz.'' I will read the first two paragraphs: ``A high-ranking Iranian official has said Iran's military will practice sealing off the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil transport channel, in a provocative move that illustrates Iran's capability of disrupting the world's oil supply. ``The announcement Monday by Parviz Sarvari sent oil prices up about $3 to $100 a barrel based on the speculation of a disruption during the military drills.'' Sarvari, a member of the Iranian Parliament's National Security Committee, is quoted as saying, ``Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz,'' in a statement reported by Reuters. ``If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure.'' So the Keystone XL pipeline--which is the second part of this discussion--we heard on the floor yesterday, and it was acknowledged by both sides that, at a minimum, 20,000 jobs would be created, maybe up to 110,000 jobs. We also heard about organized labor being all in on the Keystone XL pipeline. I quoted a couple of members of organized labor. One would be Brent Bookers, director of the construction department at the Laborers' International Union of North America. He said, ``For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline; it is a lifeline.'' But what doesn't get told about Keystone XL pipeline enough is its importance for energy security. Now, look. If Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz, why do you think we're in the gulf? Why is the Middle East so important? We all know why it is; because that's where all of the crude oil is. So why would we not access the third largest oil supply to the Earth from our northern neighbor, Canada? The map is right here. Right up here you have the great Canadian oil sands in Alberta. The red line is already a pipeline called the Keystone pipeline. What is being proposed is the Keystone XL pipeline, which would help bring Canadian crude to the oil refineries in Texas. Now, I already have Keystone crude oil coming to my refinery in Wood River, to the terminal in Patoka, and to the Marathon refinery in Robinson, Illinois, and that crude oil, once refined through pipeline, goes to Cleveland, goes to Detroit, goes to Chicago and goes all over the country. There can be no more secure route for crude oil for this country than the Keystone Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Do we dare as a country still have to fret over threats by a member of the Iranian parliament because they want to shut down the Strait of Hormuz? We will have to continue to worry about this unless we continue to build and work with our Canadian allies on the Keystone XL Pipeline. We know it's a jobs issue, we know it's an organized labor issue, and we know it's an energy security issue. And I just thought this story was timely with respect to our vote to hold Iran accountable. So we're on the record: We need energy security and we need the Keystone XL Pipeline.