John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to follow my friend and colleague from California who's retiring at the end of the Congress, which is another year. Even though we disagree probably too many times to count, no one questions her passion and her commitment, and her moral consciousness of doing the right thing. So give me a chance to publicly state that, and I look forward to serving with you in the final year together. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to read a letter from a businessman in southwestern Illinois who is closing up the business. But even more timely than that was a Wall Street Journal editorial today. I mean, I was bringing the letter down anyway, so then I decided, looking at the Wall Street Journal editorial. And it's titled, ``Regulation For Dummies.'' The White House says its rulemaking isn't costly or unusual. The evidence shows otherwise. First paragraph. ``The White House is on the political offensive, and one of its chief claims is that it isn't the over-regulator of business and Republican lore. This line has been picked up by an impressionable columnist, so it's a good time to consider the evidence in some detail.'' So they go through the analysis. It ends up by saying the evidence is so overwhelming that the Obama regulatory surge is one reason the current economic recovery has been so lackluster by historical standards. Rather than nurture an economy trying to rebuild confidence after the financial heart attack, the administration pushed through its now famous blitz of liberal policies on health care, financial services, energy, housing, education, and student loans, telecom, labor relations, transportation, and probably some other industries we've forgotten. Anyone who thinks this has only minimal impact on business has never been in business. Now, the column was dated December 14. This letter was dated December 7. ``You are the finest customer that we have served or you are one of the finest professionals that have served these customers. ``After 61 years, of which 58 were wonderful years in the construction business and having been associated with the greatest of people, it's with much sadness and disappointment that we have to announce that we will be closing December 31, 2011. ``You all know that we served the private sector. We've enjoyed working with industry, aviation, and all private businesses and entrepreneurs. We always felt that you were the pulse of the whole USA. It's sad to say that, through no fault of yours, that this pulse has slowed to a level that can no longer sustain the quality of service we have always felt obligated and more desired to provide. ``Our government is wonderful in that it provides for our common defense, our highway infrastructures and a few other worthy endeavors. However, they are, in fact an expense, an expense that we should enjoy funding. Though when they lose sight of the true fact that we in the private enterprise pay the bills and do not support an environment in which we can flourish with the fruits of our hard work, the funding will soon cease to exist. ``Government cannot produce revenue or prosperity, but they, like us, could enjoy both if they look at themselves as any other hired service organization that has to be worth the money they are getting paid. That's the way all of us have to operate and what gives us pride in what we do. ``God bless you. Thank you. And we pray that we all find American leadership to restore the pulse and pressure of the great private sector and the American Entrepreneur again. You are the Heartbeat of America. Again, God bless you.'' And so, these two written, one column, one letter, occurring simultaneously almost, highlighting the point that it is this regulatory regime pushed on by the executive branch that is, if not outright destroying jobs, it's making it very difficult for jobs to flourish. That's why in the bill last night we moved the Keystone XL pipeline, connected with the Boiler MACT. That's why we've done some other bills to, at least legislatively, put barriers into the excesses of the regulatory regime here from the executive branch. Mr. Speaker, I think this was timely to come down to the floor and share this letter, and I thank you for the time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, at the end of last week, I was able to take to the floor with some of my colleagues to talk about high-level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Part of that time, I wanted to make sure, as I have each week, to highlight certain locations around this country where high-level nuclear waste is stored. Because of time constraints, I wasn't able to do that, so I take to the floor this morning to highlight a nuclear power plant in Florida called Turkey Point. And the way I do this, Mr. Speaker, is I have this poster in front of me, and I compare the location of high-level nuclear waste at Turkey Point to the defined-by-law location for a single repository in this country, Yucca Mountain. So look at what we have here. At Yucca Mountain, we have currently no nuclear waste on site. At Turkey Point, there's is 1,074 metric tons of spent fuel on site. That's quite a lot of fuel. If we had waste stored at Yucca Mountain, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground-- Yucca Mountain is a mountain. At Turkey Point, waste is stored above ground in pools. Now why is that an important point to consider? The nuclear catastrophe in Japan, the Fukushima Daiichi plant, part of the major disaster was because of high-level nuclear waste stored in pools. The earthquake occurred and either the water that was there boiled out or there were cracks in the containment valve and it spilled out, and then the nuclear waste heated up, and hence you have a very dangerous situation still in Japan. At Yucca Mountain, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet above the water table. But here, at Turkey Point, which is in Florida, the waste is on Biscayne Bay at sea level. So it is at sea level, not in a mountain in a desert. What we've done also is look at if you are at Yucca Mountain how far are you away from really the largest body of water, which would be the Colorado River? Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Turkey Point and the nuclear waste stored there is 10 miles from the Everglades--10 miles from the Everglades. So we passed--I wasn't a Member of this Chamber at this time--a Federal law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982. When we passed that law, we defined Yucca Mountain as the national repository--a single repository for not just nuclear waste from our nuclear power fleet, but also the nuclear waste from our Department of Energy locations from around the country. Obviously, we are very close, but this administration, along with the NRC Commissioner, has delayed, postponed, and tried to stop any movement on Yucca Mountain. And that's why I take the floor. As the subcommittee chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, part of my jurisdiction is high-level nuclear waste, and that's why I come to the floor weekly to address this issue. Now, this is very timely this week, as Chairman Jaczko and the NRC Commissioners are up here before our Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Chairman Jaczko, in an article dated September 7, said, ``I welcome debate, I welcome discussion, I welcome criticism.'' But a letter sent to the Chief of Staff of the White House, Mr. Bill Daley, by the other four Commissioners, bipartisan--two Democrats, two Republicans, three appointed by the President--says this about Chairman Jaczko: He's intimidated and bullied senior career staff to the degree that he has created a high level of fear and anxiety resulting in a chilled work environment. They also say he ordered staff to withhold or modify policy information and recommendations intended for transmission to the Commission. He has also ignored the will of the majority of the Commission, contrary to the statutory functions of the Commission. And he has attempted to intimidate the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. This is part of the problem of our not having a national policy to move high-level nuclear waste to a centralized location in a desert underneath a mountain, Yucca Mountain. We have Senators who have voted for that in this area. The two senators from Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama all support it. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, October 13, 2011. Hon. William L. Daley, Chief of Staff, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Chief of Staff Daley: As individual members of an independent regulatory commission, we all took oaths to execute this agency's nuclear regulatory mission and to uphold the institution's values, including its Principles of Good Regulation. Our obligation is not only to the agency and its staff, but also to the American people. It is from that foundation that we write to express our grave concerns regarding the leadership and management practices exercised by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko. We believe that his actions and behavior are causing serious damage to this institution and are creating a chilled work environment at the NRC. We are concerned that this will adversely affect the NRC's essential mission to protect the health, safety and security of the American people. In a long series of very troubling actions taken by Chairman Jaczko, he has undermined the ability of the Commission to function as prescribed by law and decades of successful practice. Since this current Commission was formed some 18 months ago, after the President nominated and the Senate confirmed the three newest members, we have observed that Chairman Jaczko has: Intimidated and bullied senior career staff to the degree that he has created a high level of fear and anxiety resulting in a chilled work environment; Ordered staff to withhold or modify policy information and recommendations intended for transmission to the Commission; Attempted to intimidate the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, a legislatively-chartered independent group of technical advisors, to prevent it from reviewing certain aspects of NRC's analysis of the Fukushima accident; lnored the will of the majority of the Commission; contrary to the statutory functions of the Commission; and Interacted with us, his fellow Commissioners, with such intemperance and disrespect that the Commission no longer functions as effectively as it should. Recently, on October 5, 2011, Chairman Jaczko appeared as an invited guest at a periodic meeting of the agency's Executive Director for Operations and other senior career executives. According to multiple reports, his comments reflected contempt for the Commission itself and open disdain for the Internal Commission Procedures, a document that embodies governing principles from the NRC's organic legislation--the Energy Reorganization of 1974 and the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980. These procedures guide the conduct of the work of the Commission. Over the last 18 months, we have shown Chairman Jaczko considerable deference. Moreover, for the sake of the agency, its staff, and public confidence, we have strived to avoid public displays of disharmony. Unfortunately, our efforts have been received only as encouragement for further transgressions. We are committed to conduct the work of this agency to the best of our ability and despite the items highlighted above and numerous other troubling actions taken by Chairman Jaczko, we have carried out the work before us and will continue to do so. However, Chairman Jaczko's behavior and management practices have become increasingly problematic and erratic. We believe his conduct as Chairman is inconsistent with the NRC's organizational values and impairs the effective execution of the agency's mission. We provided Chairman Jaczko our concerns in the attached memorandum. Sincerely, Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki. Commissioner William D. Magwood, IV. Commissioner George Apostolakis. Commissioner William C. Ostendorff.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My friend from Ohio came down and he said, you know, what we need, what America needs, is jobs. And so that's the important aspect of bringing the Keystone XL pipeline into this debate. Don't listen to me; listen to my friends in organized labor. Brent Bookers, director of the construction department of Laborers International Union of North America, said in testimony: ``For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline; it's a lifeline.'' David Barnett, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices said: ``The fact of the matter is Keystone XL would, upon completion, be the most environmentally safe pipeline anywhere in America.'' And then Jeffrey Soth of the International Union of Operating Engineers said: ``Without the Keystone XL pipeline, American crude oil from the Bakken Formation, the fastest-growing oil field in the United States, will continue to move out of the region in the most dangerous, most expensive way possible, by tanker truck.'' Folks, this is about jobs. We're fortunate to be able to place this in this bill, 20,000 immediate jobs, 110,000 additional jobs. I stood outside a refinery and I asked people, Where do you think the crude oil comes in, and how does the refined product go out? In any refinery in this country it's done through pipelines. So the Keystone XL pipeline is a job creator. Organized labor is strongly behind this. It creates 20,000 immediate jobs. And you know what, its the best form of stimulus because we're not borrowing money, and it's not a government project. So I appreciate what my colleagues have done, including it in this bill. I thank them. My organized labor friends thank you.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate, again, my colleague for coming down for this hour of discussion on really what should be the national policy on high-level nuclear waste in this country. I didn't get a chance to go through all the areas but I'm going to end with Yucca Mountain versus the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station between L.A. and San Diego. This is one of the ones I'm talking about. How much nuclear waste is in the desert underneath the mountain? None. How much is on the Pacific Ocean right on the coastline? There's the photo. That's 2,300 waste rods on site. The waste would be stored a thousand feet underground at Yucca. The waste is stored above the ground in pools right on the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean. The waste would be a thousand feet above the water table here. Of course, as you can see from the photo, the waste is right next to the Pacific Ocean. The waste at Yucca Mountain would be a hundred miles from the Colorado River. Again, you can see the waves breaking almost right up to the nuclear generating station between LA and San Diego. I've gone to Massachusetts. I should have talked about Florida today. I've talked about Illinois. DOE locations like Washington State. There's a lot of nuclear waste defined differently all over this country. Let's do the correct public policy and get it at a single repository in the desert underneath a mountain. With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your diligence, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, I would kind of close this circle, Mr. Speaker, reminding folks that the chairman of the NRC, Mr. Jaczko, used to work for now-majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid. And it's the majority leader in the Senate that is blocking the funding for the final scientific analysis, and it is the chairman of the NRC who used to work for the majority leader who is complicit in this plan to shut down an investment of this country of $14.5 billion to comply with Federal law that we passed in 1982. Now, in 1982 I was serving my country as an Army lieutenant in West Germany before the Wall came down. That's a long time ago. This has been the policy of this country for decades. And to have one man, one majority leader of the Senate, put a halt to that, that's why we're down here, because he has raised this to a political debate, not a scientific debate. And because it's a political debate, what I'm attempting to do over a series of weeks is go around the country and just identify where is high-level nuclear waste stored, and would it be better for that waste to be stored underneath a mountain in a desert, the most investigated piece of property on the history of this Earth. There is no piece of property that has been more studied than Yucca Mountain anywhere on the face of this Earth. So I know this is hard for some folks to see. We're doing a tally as we go around the country to look at, where are the votes? And we have 27 people, bipartisan, who have said this is where it should go from Washington State; of course, Illinois and Wisconsin, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Maine, Vermont, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. We have new Senators who have not had an opportunity to publicly either make a statement on it or cast a vote. They're in the middle. We have 27 ``yes,'' 8 unknown. We're going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Merkley. Feinstein was a ``no'' but Fukushima Daiichi and the two nuclear power plants that are on the Pacific Ocean in California and the high-level nuclear waste that's stored in ponds have her in a quandary based upon the representation of that State. Tester of Montana, unknown; Lee of Utah; Brown of Massachusetts; Ayotte of New Hampshire; Shaheen of New Hampshire; Wicker of Mississippi. Bona fide ``noes'': Reid of Nevada, Heller of Nevada, Cantwell of Washington, Boxer of California, Baucus of Montana, Kerry of Massachusetts, and Sanders of Vermont. So it's a chance to use the bully pulpit and my position as chairman of the subcommittee to help educate not only the floor, my colleagues, the Speaker, those who are following us, that there's got to be a better way to store high-level nuclear waste than in pools next to Lake Michigan, next to the Savannah River, next to the Pacific Ocean. Surely, there's a better place. And we know there is. Thirty years of study and research--Federal law says Yucca Mountain in the desert underneath a mountain is probably as good a place as you're going to find, at least in the United States.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And part of this debate about the nuclear waste and where it's stored and the nuclear waste fund has been litigated in Federal court, and the courts have said it is the responsibility of the national government to take this waste as part of the law, complying with the law. Obviously, we have no place to take it. So we end up having the utility store the high-level nuclear waste on site; and some of them, some have not asked us yet, some of them we are actually paying to hold the waste that we're supposed to be holding.

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established Yucca Mountain as the national repository for high-level nuclear waste. And, again, for the educational purposes, Mr. Speaker, that is spent fuel. Sometimes it's spent nuclear waste from our Department of Defense, now controlled by the Department of Energy sites like Hanford. Our argument is: Let's consolidate this waste safely, securely at one location so that, as my colleague from Georgia says, we can more safely, I think, effectively, I think, efficiently, I think, cost effectively manage, protect, and eventually try to remediate some of the damage that's been done over decades because of this high-level nuclear waste being located all over the country. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, I thank my friend from Georgia for helping out on the Special Order and just addressing the issue of recycling. What do we do? Because those of us who follow the nuclear fuel cycle, most people want it closed. And how do you get it closed? You get it closed by getting as much energy out of the fuel rods as you can. You do that by reprocessing. But it would make sense that if there was someone who is going to attempt to do that, that the nuclear fuel would be close by. There's probably some discussions about if we were going to have a reprocessing facility sometime in this country like France, where would you locate it? Where would it be situated? I mean, I am just a layman in this debate, but I think you would want it close by where the nuclear material is, the material that you want to use to reprocess, to create fuel. I can't speak for the entire body. I do know that the House spoke on Yucca Mountain and bringing a finality to this--297 Members voted to ensure that we had the final dollars to do the final scientific study to move this process forward. And in that debate, it just showed that the will of the House was supportive and this is bipartisan. I mean, we don't have 297--or whatever the number is--Members who are just Republicans. We have 242. That means we brought a lot of our colleagues from the other side on this debate. Some of those really believe that the future is reprocessing and that we ought to be exploring that, and it's much better to have them located where you can recover that material. If my colleague from Georgia wouldn't mind, we are joined by another colleague from Illinois. People wonder why we take up this cause. It's because we're a big nuclear State. It's about 50 percent of our electricity generation. I do a lot of coal. Coal is very important to me, but we are a nuclear power State which means we have a lot of sites, a lot of reactors, and we have a lot of nuclear waste. So I yield to my colleague and thank him for coming down.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. I think I briefly tried to show this article from The Salt Lake Tribune, dated December 8, which talks about some of the reactor parts that are going to go out to Utah. What the article ends up saying is: The site will not, however, take the Illinois plant's used fuel rods. The United States currently has no site to dispose of spent fuel from commercial reactors, a form of high-level nuclear waste. So if we don't have a location, where is that high-level nuclear waste, the spent fuel, going to remain? MR. DOLD. It's going to remain, seriously, right in the middle of a high-population area and hundreds of feet away from the jewel of our ecosystem--in the Great Lakes, in Lake Michigan. It's the wrong place for it to be. Common sense would say to move it out to a place, to a location, just like Yucca Mountain; $14 billion of research and dollars have gone into the site. Let's put it 1,000 feet below the ground, 1,000 feet above the water table, in an arid environment. It's absolutely perfect for it. It's something that we should move forward on. It's in the best interest and safety of the American public to do something along these lines.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, I appreciate your joining me today. I want to quote from a Chicago Tribune editorial of March 19. I'll just read three short paragraphs: ``Here's why that is potentially a bigger problem than a meltdown: In the Japanese reactors, as in many U.S. reactors, the spent fuel is housed in large water-filled pools in the reactor building but outside the concrete-and-steel fortress that surrounds the reactor core. ``If the core melts down, any radiation released is likely to be partly bottled up by the containment vessel. ``Not so for the spent fuel pools, which often contain far more radioactive material than in the reactor. If the water that keeps those rods cool drains or boils away, the used fuel can catch fire. Result: A dangerous plume of extremely high radioactivity spewed into the air. ``Obvious question: Why do nuclear plants store spent fuel that way? ``Obvious answer in the U.S.: Yucca Mountain isn't open. In the 1980s, the Federal Government launched plans to ship nuclear waste to a storage lair carved into the mountain in Nevada and let it slowly and harmlessly decay.'' So there are benefits to nuclear power. If you're a climate change person and if you don't want carbon dioxide and if you still want a lot of electricity for us to use in all of our new technology, you'll have to have a generator. Yet, in this case, it's the used fuel. It is properly stored, but it would be better stored in a single repository underneath a mountain in the desert for all of those reasons. You're talking about four reactors right now in Georgia; two more coming online, that's six; Illinois has 11. There are over 104 across this whole country and, of course, we spent our time talking about the used nuclear fuel from the industry. But when I started this debate about what do we do with high-level nuclear waste, I started with a DOE facility that goes back to World War II and the development of the nuclear bomb and the Fat Man bomb, which was built at Hanford, Washington. And all that waste, going all the way back to World War II, is in Hanford. And there are 53 million gallons of nuclear waste on site, buried right off the surface of the ground in tanks that are 750,000 to a million gallons each. Only about 40 of them--there is over 100. Only about 40 of them are double-lined. That means the rest are not. Some are leaking.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Continuing to speak on this issue of just looking at it, to kind of get away from just the nuclear generating profit sector, to address our responsibility as stewards of a program that was developed to stop World War II and then eventually remedy these environments that had an environmental impact. Yucca Mountain, the waste storage plan for Hanford--and I've just toured it this year. The plan to gather up, deliquify, reprocess, put it in these canisters is designed to go to one location. Do you know what that location is? That location is Yucca Mountain. So our failure to move forward, or our failure--actually, the other Chamber's failure, the leader of the Senate's failure, the President of the United States' failure, just tells Washington State what? Guess what. You've got this high-level nuclear waste that's leaking, that's close to the Columbia River, and just deal with it. Just deal with it. I find that unacceptable after, as my colleague from Illinois said, $14.5 billion we've spent to prepare this site at Yucca Mountain only to have it stopped for political purposes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SHIMKUS. My colleague is correct. We've already spent about $14.5 billion dollars in the research, the development, the exploration, the testing. A lot of money, time, effort, and some of our greatest minds have been involved. I don't really think you have to be one of the greatest minds. The point I always say is, common sense says in the desert underneath a mountain. Isn't that where you would want high-level nuclear waste versus right off the shore of Lake Michigan?

Mr. SHIMKUS. If my colleague would continue to discuss this for a few minutes, you mentioned a fund in your kind of opening statement. For the benefit of the Speaker, could you explain where this fund comes from and who is paying into it and what is it designed to do and what's going on with it right now.

Mr. SHIMKUS. The city of Las Vegas, which is the major metropolitan area, is a hundred miles from Yucca Mountain. What people have a hard time understanding about the nuclear test area, this is where the nuclear test site was. The Federal Government owns numerous parcels of land around Yucca Mountain. The communities right outside the reservation--and I think the whole test site area is like the size of New Hampshire--but the communities, what's interesting about this debate, the communities right outside the gate are fully supportive of Yucca Mountain being the repository for high-level nuclear waste. And why do I know that? Because I visited them. I've been in their communities. I went to the community center. They welcomed me, and we talked about how this was important for the country and their local communities.

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you have constituents who have been paying into this fund?

Mr. SHIMKUS. I'm told that Zion is, what, 40 miles from downtown Chicago.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Now I'm going to turn to my colleague from Georgia, who also serves with me on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have jurisdiction over this. My subcommittee is the Environment and the Economy. I deal with a lot of these waste disposal issues, nuclear waste being one of those. My colleague from Georgia has followed this issue as long as I have. The last time I came to the floor, I mentioned a couple facilities in Georgia, but the one that I have highlighted is the Savannah River. As I finish, I'll get this picture up to my colleague. But the point we're trying to make today is that here you have Yucca Mountain, which is a mountain in a desert. Then you have nuclear waste all over this country. Look at this one. It's right next to the Savannah River. At Yucca Mountain, we have no nuclear waste on site. At the Savannah River, there are 6,300 canisters of waste on site. The waste would be stored, as my colleague Bob Dold said, 1,000 feet underground; whereas, at the Savannah River, it's stored right below the ground. At Yucca Mountain, it's 1,000 feet above the water table. At the Savannah River, it would be zero to 160 feet above the water table. The waste at Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Well, you can see that it's adjacent to the Savannah River. So I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey, for joining me; and I yield to him to enter into the colloquy.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's great to get a chance to come back down to the floor to visit with my colleagues and talk about an issue that I've been raising seven or eight weeks in a row. I'll have a little more extended time to go over what has transpired over the past 6 to 7 months, and that's that this country really needs to address this high-level nuclear waste problem in this country. I'm glad to be joined with some of my colleagues who I'll yield to in a couple of minutes. But just to start in a synopsis, based upon the parts of the country that we visited, for us to move past the logjam that's in the other body, we have to find 60 Senators who will vote to move forward what we know is Federal law. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 recognized and determined that Yucca Mountain would be the national repository for high-level nuclear waste. I think a lot of folks would say, well, so if it's a law, why aren't we there? Well, the reason we're not there now is because the majority leader of the Senate has blocked it, along with the President of the United States. This time is being spent to help educate the American public, Mr. Speaker, on where is the high level nuclear waste, what communities, what States are affected, and what Senators should be held somewhat accountable for the positions they take as far as high-level nuclear waste? On the chart to my far left, throughout this last half a year, we need 60 votes. We've got at least 27 Senators who we know already support this based upon votes or public statements. We have eight that really have not had a chance to address this by a vote or haven't made a public statement on it yet. And we have seven ``nays'' or seven ``no'' votes. With that, just because I appreciate my colleagues taking time out, I would like to first yield to my colleague from the State of Illinois, no disrespect to my colleague from the State of Georgia, to go into a discussion about one of the areas that we addressed, one of the first sites we talked about. I figured I'd better come forward and talk about my own State. If I'm going to talk about other States, I better talk about my own State, the State of Illinois. In the State of Illinois, 50 percent of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. We're one of the biggest nuclear power States in the country. We picked a facility that's actually closed, which is Zion Power Plant. With that, I'd yield to my colleague, Mr. Dold, to kind of talk about Zion, the State of Illinois, and its location.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can you tell me the disposition of what's going on with the Zion Power Plant? What's going on there right now?

Mr. SHIMKUS. The reason this is important is, unfortunately, due to Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, which is a great tragedy. A lot of people think about the containment issue, which has always been the fear. Part of the Fukushima Daiichi problem was the spent fuel in the pools, which might be a bigger environmental disaster based upon things that cannot be planned. That's why we continue to push this. I appreciate my colleague for coming down.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. It's always great to follow the highly respected minority whip, and he is highly respected. I would say that there are a lot of pressing problems in this country. There is one I'll speak about today, and that's the high-level nuclear waste storage throughout this country. I would also say to my friend that part of the jobs bill has been passed. We passed the free trade agreement; we passed the veterans benefit portion; we passed the 3 percent withholding. So there has been movement in a bipartisan manner on some provisions in the bill. So now, Mr. Speaker, let me segue to an issue for which I've come to the floor now six times, that of going throughout the country and highlighting where high-level nuclear waste is stored throughout this country. Today, we'll travel to the State of Massachusetts, right on Cape Cod Bay where the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant sits. Again, it's right on Cape Cod Bay. At Pilgrim, there are over 2,918 spent-fuel assemblies on site. Yucca Mountain, which is the defined storage location, by law, in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, currently has no nuclear waste on site. I like to keep highlighting the real distinct differences based upon the years of talking about this issue and highlighting some of the arguments against Yucca, comparing it to where we have nuclear waste today. So let's, again, continue to look at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. The waste is stored aboveground in pools, very similar to Fukushima- Diachi in Japan. At Yucca the waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground--above the ground in pools, 1,000 feet underground. I think Yucca is a better location. At Pilgrim the waste is 20 feet from the water table. At Yucca it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. I think that's a better, safer and more secure location. You can see the Pilgrim plant is right on Cape Cod Bay, right next to the water. Yucca Mountain is situated 100 miles from, really, the nearest body of water, which would be the Colorado River. Now, for those who have been following my time in coming to the floor, this is my sixth time. I started at Hanford, a DOE facility in Washington State, and compared it to Yucca Mountain. I then went to Zion. I've got my friend from Chicago right here. Zion is right on Lake Michigan, which is a decommissioned nuclear power plant that still has waste stored on site; but Wisconsin has two nuclear power plants right on Lake Michigan. Then I went to Savannah, Georgia, to talk about the nuclear waste there. Of course, it has the Savannah River; so it's right next to the Savannah River. Then I went out to California to look at San Onofre, the nuclear power plant that's right on the Pacific Ocean. Then I went to Idaho and looked at the Idaho National Labs and the nuclear waste stored there. Today, we go to Massachusetts. The point being, there is high-level nuclear waste stored all over this country, and a single repository at Yucca Mountain makes sense for all of the right reasons: it's over 100 miles from the largest city; it's in the desert; it would be underneath a mountain. There is no more safe, secure location. Why are we not moving forward? Because this administration has decided not to spend the money needed to finish the final environmental study through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So where are our Senators on this position? I've been bringing this down to the floor through all these States. We need 60 votes in the Senate to secure America's nuclear waste. Right now, through the States, based upon the States we've identified, there are 20 ``yeses.'' We've got about seven who are relatively new. We don't know their positions. Of course, we have established five who are ``noes.'' There are some in the New England States that I mentioned: Susan Collins voted for Yucca Mountain in 2002. Olympia Snowe voted for it in 2002. Senator Kerry voted against it. Now, Pilgrim is in the State of Massachusetts. Based upon his statement, I guess Senator Kerry feels that Pilgrim is a more safe and secure location than Yucca Mountain. Scott Brown has no position yet. Senator Ayotte has no position. Senator Shaheen has no position. Of course, the Independent from Vermont has voted ``no.''

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come down to the floor once a week to talk about the high level of nuclear waste in this country and the fact that this country still doesn't have a single repository to store high- level nuclear waste. Throughout this last year, I've talked about Hanford, Washington, which has multiple gallons of high-level nuclear waste. I then went to Zion nuclear power plant right off Lake Michigan to talk about its nuclear waste right next to the lake. A couple of weeks ago, I went to Savannah, Georgia, to talk about the Savannah River and the nuclear power plant that sits right next to the river. Then I went to the Pacific Ocean between Los Angeles and San Diego, San Onofre, where there's a nuclear power plant right on the Pacific Ocean. Today I take the Nation to Idaho, where Idaho National Laboratory is located, comparing this site, as I do weekly, to the fine location under Federal law in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act which is Yucca Mountain. Look at what we have at Idaho National Laboratory. At the national labs we have 5,090 canisters of nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain, none. At Idaho, the waste is stored above ground and in pools. At Yucca Mountain, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet from the surface of the ground. At Idaho, the waste would be 500 feet above the water table. At Yucca Mountain, the waste would be 1,000 feet above the water table. Idaho National Laboratory, 50 miles from Yellowstone Park; Yucca Mountain, the waste would be 100 miles from the Colorado River. Now, why is it important to address these different locations of high-level nuclear waste across the country? Because there's 104 nuclear reactors in this country, not including all of the high-level nuclear waste that we have at our defense labs, our DOE labs, and the like. So what this country needs to understand is there's nuclear waste all over the place and next to major population centers and next to major water reserves. What I've also done in coming down here has been to highlight how do the Senators from the States that surround the Idaho nuclear lab--what are their positions? And their positions are as follows. Senator Barrasso from Wyoming is a supporter of Yucca Mountain and has stated that the end result of this saga is a 5-mile long, 25-foot- wide hole in the Nevada desert. It was meant to store America's nuclear waste but instead, because of politics, it stands as a monument to bureaucratic waste of taxpayer dollars. What does Senator Enzi say, who's also supported and voted for Yucca Mountain in 2002? ``In his campaign, President Obama promised change. He promised politics wouldn't interfere when sound science spoke. I'm disappointed that his Yucca Mountain policy ignores that campaign promise.'' Mike Crapo voted ``yes'' for Yucca Mountain, and he's disappointed in the administration. And the new Senator from Idaho, Senator Risch, says: ``The President's decision to kill the Nation's congressionally directed repository for high-level nuclear waste as a favor to one State is politics at its worst. The Administration's decision to knowingly undermine their commitments to Idaho and 33 other States with no clear alternative cannot stand. This has become a hallmark of this administration, first with the Guantanamo prison site and now Yucca Mountain--to jump without knowing where they are going to land.'' The other thing I've been doing has just been highlighting, as I've been taking the country through the high-level nuclear waste areas around this country: Where are the Senators based upon their past votes or current statements? Right now, we have 17 Senators in support; we have three in opposition; and we have four who really have no defined positions as of yet. Senator Feinstein, of course, has spoken in opposition to Yucca Mountain; but with Fukushima Daiichi and with the fact that she has nuclear power plants on the shore of the Pacific Ocean, I think she is reevaluating that position. We need 60 votes in the Senate to move forward and to finish the science on Yucca Mountain so that, by Federal law, Yucca Mountain becomes the single repository for high-level nuclear waste in this country. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, in today's Reuters report, ``Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday urged claimants to the South China Sea not to resort to intimidation to push their cause in the potentially oil-rich waters, an indirect reference to China ahead of a regional leaders' summit.'' Why are we concerned about crude oil in dangerous places of the world? It is because we do not have North American energy security, hence the whole Keystone XL pipeline debate. And we have good news on that front. Two days ago, from Lincoln, Nebraska, another Reuters article says, ``Nebraska and TransCanada agreed on Monday to find a new route for the stalled Keystone XL pipeline that would steer clear of environmentally sensitive lands in the State.'' Why is that important? Energy security, expediting the permitting process, 20,000 new jobs immediately, private capital, Caterpillar mining trucks, Marathon Oil refinery. If you live in the Midwest States of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, this oil goes directly to refineries and that, which decreases our reliance on imported crude oil and makes us safe and secure and it creates jobs. Keystone XL is a no-brainer. This administration needs to get off the dime and move this process.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.