Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, on October 1, the nation of Georgia successfully elected a new Parliament and

then underwent the country's first peaceful transfer of power via an election since independence. I commend President Saakashvili on his leadership in that transition.

The Georgian people are to be congratulated for a credible election. I am encouraged by Georgia's continued positive attitude toward NATO integration and its determination to be a modern democracy. However, the Georgian Dream coalition must be reminded that the most effective way for Georgia to join NATO is through continued development of democracy and the rule of law.

First, there has been increasing pressure on President Saakashvili to resign prior to the constitutional end of his term in October 2013. While the new majority may see this as a logical next step to finalizing the transfer of power, attempting to coerce a sitting head of state to give up their constitutional mandate before its expiration would run contrary to the principles of democratic governance and the rule of law.

Second, on November 7, the prosecutor's office arrested three members of the resigned government, charged with unspecified abuses of power.

Georgia has made enormous progress in its democratic and political development over the past 2 months, progress which very few predicted would or could happen so quickly and completely. In light of that, I would encourage the new leadership of Georgia to take these concerns seriously. It is incumbent upon the Georgian Government to ensure that the new Parliament consolidates the democratic process, not a political agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements of a state champion baseball team from Effingham, Illinois.

The St. Anthony Bulldogs had not visited the IHSA baseball state finals since before any of the current players were born. But this year, behind third-year coach Kenny Miller, the Bulldogs charged to a 31-8-1 record and defeated Tuscola 6-1 for the state championship.

I want to congratulate Coach Miller and Assistant Coach Grant Keller, and especially the members of the 2012 St. Anthony Bulldogs state champion baseball team: Zach Gardewine, Thomas Stephens, Ben Hecht, Jacob Lorenz, Austin Bushur, Charlie Schultz, Scott Renfrow, Kyle Burgois, Neil Williams, Michael Kabbes, Reed Willenborg, Cody Pike, Jared Having, Eli Dasenbrock, Alex Hoelsher, Conner Greene, Braden Puckett and Michael Stehens. They have represented themselves, their school and their community in a first-rate fashion, and I am proud to join with the other Members of this House in congratulating them, and wishing them all the best in their future athletic and academic endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 200th birthday of my home county, Madison County, Illinois. Situated in southwestern Illinois, Madison County is one of the fastest growing and most diverse counties in Illinois. Whether it is the suburban hustle and bustle of Collinsville and Godfrey, the rural small-town atmosphere of Grantfork and Alhambra, the industrial might of Granite City and Wood River, the farming communities around St. Jacob and Worden, the university neighborhoods of Edwardsville, the historic charm of Alton and Highland, or the new and expanding developments in Maryville and Bethalto, Madison County has something for everyone.

Madison County is proud of its history, and optimistic about its future. Our county has produced towering figures of history, literally and figuratively: being home to Robert Wadlow, the world's tallest man, as well as the great Senator Paul Simon, jazz legend Miles Davis, and the abolitionist publisher Elijah Lovejoy. Our county was founded by Swiss, Italian, Hungarian, and Lithuanian immigrants. They farmed, mined, and worked in mills. Governor Ninian Edwards--for whom Edwardsville is named--chose President James Madison as our county's namesake.

On behalf of the more than a quarter-million proud residents of Madison County, I invite you to visit and see the National Great Rivers Museum in Alton, our many historic Route 66 sites, the Piasa Bird outside Alton, and the Lewis and Clark Historic Site. The fine, hard- working men and women of all walks of life who make our communities and our county an excellent place to live, work and raise a family welcome you.

I congratulate County Board President Alan Dunstan, and my many other friends and neighbors in Madison County on celebrating the bicentennial. May our home county continue to grow and prosper for another 200 years and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the achievements of the Nashville Hornettes softball team, which earlier this month brought home its second state championship.

The Hornettes put together a stellar 35-4 season this year, swept through the regional and the sectional, and knocked off two of the state's top teams at the state finals in order to claim the title. I want to congratulate Coach Dempsey Witte, who led this team to the title in only his second year as head coach, as well as his assistants: Wayne Harre, Charlie Heck, Bethany Hinkle and Jordan Farris. I especially want to extend my congratulations to the members of the 2012 Hornettes state championship softball team who worked so hard all year to achieve this goal: Alana Czajkowski, Emily Thompson, Mollie Borowiak, Jordi Harre, Lauren O'Daniell, Hannah Yung, Nellie Snead, Nicole Deering, Kiley Pelker, Abbi Liske, Daley Buchanan, Briah Winchester, Maci Ingram and Shaye Harre.

These student-athletes, and their coaches, have represented themselves, their school and their community in a first-rate fashion, and I join with the other Members of this House in congratulating them, and wishing them all the best in their future academic and athletic endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the 175th birthday of the great city of Highland, Illinois. Originally settled in 1831 by the Swiss immigrant Koepfli family, and named Helvetia, or New Switzerland, Highland got its name five years later when a local man, General Joseph Semple, commented that the area reminded him of his native Scotland. A year after that, in 1837, Highland was formally chartered as a city. The town still retains its connection to Switzerland, partnering with the Koepfli's home in Switzerland, Sursee, as a Sister City since the 1970s, and hosting numerous festivals each year honoring the Swiss and German roots of the community.

Highland was the home of Louis Latzer, also known as the Father of Pet Milk, because he was the man who perfected the process of condensing milk, thereby making milk, and its myriad health benefits, available to large numbers of people. Mr. Latzer's homestead and museum remain open today in Highland for visitors.

Today, Highland is home to 9,919 people, the Highland Bulldogs, and many fine civic clubs, churches, and businesses, large and small. In September, the city will celebrate the 175th Jubilee, a three-day celebration of Highland's proud past, while looking toward a bright future.

I want to congratulate Mayor Joe Michaelis and Lynn Hargus, President of the Highland Historical Society, along with their staffs and

volunteers, for all of their hard work organizing this fall's Jubilee. I especially want to salute all the hard-working citizens of Highland, past and present, who have made the community such a great place to live and work. I am proud to represent such an outstanding community, and I want to wish them another 175 years of success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of a state championship softball team from Goreville, Illinois.

After a number of successful seasons, including a close call last year, the Goreville Blackcats finally reached the IHSA softball state finals this year. But they did more than just show up: the Blackcats swept through the semifinals and finals without allowing their opponents to score a single run, en route to the program's first state championship.

I want to extend my congratulations to Coach Shanna Massey, who also won her 100th career game this year, and her assistant coach Teresa Cash. But I especially want to congratulate the members of the 2012 Goreville Blackcats state championship team: Ashlee Webb, Sydnee Rushing, Taylor Odom, Laenya Maze, McKenzi Schaede, Shelbey Miller, Alison Webb, Haley Darnell, Hannah Murley, Brittney Pritchett, Micaela Allred, Kaylee Webb and Tiffani Shadowens. They have made history for their school and made their community proud.

I join with the other Members of this House in congratulating to the Blackcats, and wishing them best of luck in all their academic and athletic endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor a dedicated public servant--Congressman Jerry Costello. Jerry has served the people of Illinois as a law enforcement officer, as St. Clair County Board Chairman, and as a member of this House.

As you know, Jerry and I are from different political parties. But when I first came here to Washington, he was one of the first people to help me and to give me advice. He was always willing to answer my questions--some that probably seemed very basic to him. We found that despite our political differences, our callings were both based in faith--and that has allowed our relationship to grow.

I consider Jerry Costello a close friend and confidant. I cannot remember a single issue relevant to our part of the state that we have disagreed on. It has been a pleasure joining him in working on behalf of Scott Air Force Base, the levee and flood insurance issues we continue to face, and legislation related to industries important to southern Illinois like coal and renewable fuels.

Finally, I want to thank Jerry's wife Georgia and his children Jerry II, Gina and John for sharing their husband and father with all of us. And to Jay, Austin, Rorey, Ireland Keen, Jerry III, Victoria, Georgia Danielle and John Patrick--I know your grandpa is looking forward to spending more time with each of you.

Thank you, Jerry. May God continue to bless the Costello family.

I have come down to the floor just to remind my colleagues and you, Mr. Speaker, that if you go to jobs.gop.gov you will see a list of 25 bills that have been passed in this Chamber to do a couple of things: to boost competitiveness in the manufacturing sector; encouraging entrepreneurship in government; to help pay down our debt; and my favorite is maximizing American energy production. Yes, using American energy and our resources to create jobs, like the Keystone XL pipeline. We passed numerous bills to move the Keystone XL pipeline, 20,000 immediate jobs.

Mr. Speaker, you can go to jobs.gop.gov to check the 25 different bills that we have passed in this Chamber. We have done our work. We will continue to do our work. Obviously, we need the other Chamber to be somewhat functional and at least consider these bills and then move to conference, which is how a bill becomes a law.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time yielded to me to really cover a couple different issues and areas that have been pending either in the District or in our Nation--or even internationally--and using this opportunity to place into the Record and also speak to you-- in essence, speaking to the Nation--on the importance of these issues.

First what I would like to do is really commend Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for passing an ag bill out of their committee.

Now, what my producers are asking is to pass a full ag bill on the floor sooner rather than later. In fact, I've seen, and I'm sure you've seen, an ag bill now. But we were successful today in helping mitigate a flaw in the last ag bill in ensuring that the livestock provisions and the insurance portion of the ag bill of 5 years ago, it wasn't funded for this last year.

As everyone knows, this is a very challenging year for the agricultural sector. I was able to visit a dairy farm in my district last Friday, the Timmerman family, and there I was able to meet with my producers, both commodity, livestock and dairy, and in my part of the State, sometimes they are doing all of the above.

So I brought down--actually, they brought to me and I brought back to Washington to give an example of the challenges we're under. Here is a good ear of corn that has been irrigated and is what we would expect to see almost every year in southern Illinois. This was what came off of a stalk on the Timmerman dairy farm. And so this gives you, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity to understand the challenges that are faced.

Now, in a dairy operation, like a beef operation, they're growing the corn to feed their livestock. So if this is what's supposed to feed their livestock, they're used to getting this, you can understand why passing this disaster relief portion to fully fund the ag bill to help them out is very, very important.

Another producer brought this, which is the stalk and even a worse-- well, it's not even an ear of corn. It's decayed, it hasn't formed, and that's what a lot of our producers are seeing in Illinois during this time.

Now, our agriculture producers are a healthy stock, and they understand that the world is changing and that there are spending and fiscal challenges and difficulties. They're asking for a simple premise. They just want to be able to have an ag insurance product that they can rely on, that they can choose to buy into or not. They don't want to be placed in a position of having no ag insurance and then depending upon if there's a drought on disaster

payments from the national government, as has happened in the past before we really had a safety net and an ag insurance program and plan.

They know that other provisions of the ag bill are going by the wayside. They know that direct payments are going to go by the wayside. So they are just very concerned, as they should be, that this is the end of the authorization of a current farm bill. The important thing is to get the next farm bill reauthorized so that, when they start buying the seed and planning which field they're going to plant what crop, they can then make a decision whether they want to insure that crop, and they will have some expectation that if they have another bad year they will at least be able to survive to the next year.

Giving a last story about my ag producers, I was up in another part of central Illinois. I was talking to one of the producers, and he projected--and I didn't know for sure that his loss of his crop was about $400,000, which is a pretty big loss. With ag insurance, his loss is only going to be $200,000.

Now, I know you, Mr. Speaker, come from a business background, but I think it's very important to let the American public know that these producers are still going to have a loss even with an ag insurance product out there. They're not going to make them whole. But what they will do is allow them to give it another go the next year and get back into the field. That's the importance of an ag bill.

Again, I really salute Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson, and I look forward to talking to my colleagues on the importance of having an ag bill, a long ag bill, a 5-year ag bill, so that our producers have some certainty when, as this year has shown, there could be uncertain times that they are powerless to control. If there were a private sector option, maybe we could have that debate of whether there should be ag insurance at all.

But the reality is the only insurance product available is that in which the Federal Government will help offset some of the cost, let the producers have some skin in the game, and then let's manage these risks so that we could still have the safest, least expensive food supply in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to turn my attention now to some problem statements coming out from the majority leader of the other body, Mr. Reid, on a commissioner of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I pulled from the Web site the values statement and the principles of good regulation which is on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission site. And one of the first things on here, it says:

Independence: Nothing but the highest possible standards of

ethical performance and professionalism should influence

regulation.

Now, as we have learned from press reports on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got angry, and for once, it wasn't directed at Republicans. He directed his tirade at Bill Magwood, a commissioner at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Why did he focus such venom and energy at a little known public official at an independent agency? He thought he had successfully strong-armed an independent commissioner to vote the way he wanted to. In fact, the majority leader is acting--we all hate bullies, Mr. Speaker, and to have the majority leader of the Senate be a bully to a commissioner duly appointed being independent is egregious.

According to one article:

Reid said he was assured by Pete Rouse, a senior White

House official, that Magwood would also oppose Yucca.

Now, Reid thinks Magwood worked against the effort to shut down Yucca. For that, Reid says Magwood is ``one of the most unethical, prevaricating, incompetent people I've ever dealt with.''

Now, this is the majority leader of the Senate besmirching a duly appointed commissioner confirmed by the Senate because the leader of the Senate has believed he had this person's vote versus the principles of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nothing but the highest possible standards of ethical performance and professionalism should influence regulation.

Magwood unethical? I think the majority leader has got it backwards. Isn't it unethical for Members of Congress to pressure government officials to vote a certain way on adjudications? Now Senator Reid is on a tirade because he thinks his intimidation wasn't successful in convincing Commissioner Magwood to ignore the law.

Senator Reid wasn't embarrassed, though. He threw a party for his former employee, who is now the ex-commissioner. That's the kind of behavior that the public has had concerns with. This is publicly documented in the record. These are quotes by the majority leader of the Senate. It's not debatable that Commissioner Magwood is a duly appointed and confirmed commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed by the Senate and appointed by the President.

Mr. Speaker, now I will go to the other part.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I will just read the Senator's quote that's quoted in the story:

Reid said he was assured by Pete Rouse, a senior White

House official, that Magwood would also oppose Yucca. ``I met

with him because Pete Rouse asked me to meet with him. I

said, `Is he okay on Yucca Mountain?' Pete said, `Yeah.' ''

The story continues:

Reid said that Magwood's behind-the-scenes maneuvering was

unforgivable. ``He's a first-class rat. He lied to Rouse, he

lied to me, and he had a plan.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm not making this up. This is quotes. I'm not assuming what the majority leader's intentions were. I'm just reading quotes in a recently published newspaper about the majority leader of the Senate's position to a duly appointed and confirmed member of an independent regulatory commission. I think the leader owes Commissioner Magwood an apology.

With that, Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening comments, this gives me an opportunity to cover farm bill issues, national nuclear regulatory issues, some international issues.

I've been concerned about democracy in Eastern European countries for many years, so let me come to the floor to you to talk about Ukraine and the former Prime Minister. Ms. Tymoshenko continues to serve a 7- year sentence in Kharkiv, while being prosecuted in multiple criminal cases amid international outcry from the United States and the European Union.

The trial against Ms. Tymoshenko in the gas case was described as ``selective justice'' and ``political persecution'' in statements by the U.S. and the EU. The court found Ms. Tymoshenko guilty of abuse of her power, sentenced her to 7 years in prison, and ordered her to pay the state 188 million.

On October 24, 2011, Ms. Tymoshenko filed an appeal against the sentence, which was rejected on December 23, 2011. On December 30, 2011, Ms. Tymoshenko was transferred to a penal colony in Kharkiv, where her health has significantly deteriorated. The doctors who were allowed to examine her this past February stated that she was ill, in constant pain, and required significant care.

Ms. Tymoshenko went on a hunger strike from April 20 to May 9 in protest of what has happened to Ukrainian democracy and what is happening to her in prison.

I support my colleague, Chris Smith's resolution, House Resolution 730, calling on Ukrainian authorities to release political opposition leaders and hold free and fair elections. The resolution calls for denying U.S. visas to Ukrainian officials involved in serious human rights abuses, anti-democratic actions, such as electoral fraud, or corruption, including officials involved in selective prosecution, persecution of political opponent.

I call on Ukrainian officials to immediately free Ms. Tymoshenko.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I spend time following, as I said, democracy issues in Eastern European areas, former captive nations, and I come to the floor also to talk about democracy in Belarus.

I continue to be gravely concerned about the condition of political prisoners in Belarus and serious violations by Belarus of its commitments to respect human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.

Despite the release of two political prisoners, former presidential candidate Andrei Sannikov and his associate, Dmitry Bondarenko, the fundamentals of President Lukashenka's dictatorial rule have not changed. Thirteen political prisoners remain in prison, including Mikalai Statkevich, Ales Bialiatski, Syarhei Kavalenka, Zmitser Dashkevich, Pavel Seviarynets, Mikalai Autukhovich, Eduard Lobov and Mikalai Dziadok.

While journalist Andrzej Poczobut has been released pending trial, we believe that his arrest for illegally defaming the president was politically motivated and that the conditions imposed on his release are designed to further limit his ability to exercise his human rights. Moreover, recent days have seen the surge of the offices of the Union of Poles and the confiscation of equipment supposedly related to Mr. Poczobut's case.

We also recently have seen the arrest and detention and the release of journalist Pavel Sverdlov of the European Radio for Belarus for ``using foul language.'' Maybe we should consider that here sometimes. Such arrests and short-term detentions are becoming an ever-more common means to silence dissent in Belarus.

Increased restrictions on Alex Byalyatski and the court order issued July 4 for seizure of the offices of the Vyasna Human Rights Center are very disturbing.

Belarus, which already has applied travel restrictions on members of the opposition and human rights activists, recently has taken another step to restrict the fundamental freedom of movement, the right to leave one's country and return to it.

On July 12, the Belarusian authorities denied the right of Victor Kornienko, cochairman of the Initiative for Fair and Free Elections, to travel to Vienna to participate in the week's Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting. This restriction of Mr. Kornienko's freedom of movement calls into question Belarus' sincerity and commitment to change. The U.S. must protest this latest disregard of fundamental freedoms by Belarus.

The U.S. must call on Belarus to release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, to restore their full political and civil rights, and to stop the ongoing harassment of political activists, civil society representatives, human rights activists, and independent journalists.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, last but not least, what I've done on a weekly basis is raise the issue of concern and address the high-level nuclear waste storage site in issue in this country. And so I really-- since we're very close to the end of the session, very few working days here left in Washington before the elections, I'm not sure how many more days I'll have available to come down to the floor--I'm finishing where I started over a year ago, going through the country and comparing nuclear waste sites to where they're at and where they should be. And why would I do this?

Well, I would do this to help educate you, Speaker, on the fact that we have high-level nuclear waste stored throughout this country. And a lot of people do not know that we tried to address this in 1982 with passage of a law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And in 1987, and I wasn't here then, but this Chamber, this body, this country said, not only do we want to find a way to store our high-level nuclear waste, but we want it placed in a mountain, underneath a mountain in a desert. And that place is called Yucca Mountain.

Now, since that time we've spent about $15 billion over 30 years investigating, doing the scientific studies to see if Yucca Mountain, again, a mountain in a desert, is a suitable place to put high-level nuclear waste. I believe it is, but I'm not a scientist.

So what this Chamber did a couple of week ago is, in our appropriation bill, we asked our colleagues should we, as a national government, commit the final dollars to do the final scientific study to come to a final conclusion of whether Yucca Mountain is safe. Over about 326 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, from rural areas to urban areas, said let's keep going with the current public policy. Let's finish the study so we know if Yucca Mountain is indeed safe, and let's move to address our high-level nuclear waste and concerns throughout this country.

Why is that important?

Well, let's go to one site. Now, for you, Mr. Speaker, I've done this almost at least every month, probably every week we've been in session, going around the country at different locations from Tennessee to Illinois to Maryland, but where I started first is a very telling and educational location, and it's called Hanford.

Now, Hanford. I have a lot of colleagues and a lot of the new observers of our process here in Washington who sometimes think they should just shut down all government--stop spending, and don't have a Department of Energy. Sometimes you have to have a Department, and Hanford is a perfect example. Hanford is a legacy World War II nuclear waste site. We are still paying for winning World War II, and we are still paying for developing the nuclear weapons that stopped the war, especially in Asia. Obviously, the bombs dropped in Japan. And how are we paying for it? Well, we still have Hanford. I'll tell you that Hanford is right in the central, deep southern part of Washington State. This is the Columbia River.

So what do we have in Hanford?

At Hanford, we have 53 million gallons of nuclear waste on site. Now, this is not spent nuclear fuel. This is the chemical sludge--highly toxic and very nasty stuff--that was used to help, kind of refine uranium into the fuel needed to have nuclear weapons. There are 53 million gallons. If you've ever been by a refinery and if you've seen a tank farm with crude oil--you'll see these great big tanks where some might be 750,000 gallons and some might be a million gallons--that's what's at Hanford, but they're all buried underground. In these tanks are the 53 million gallons of this toxic sludge, and as I point to it here, some of it is leaking. Now, the waste is stored 10 feet underground because it's buried underground. It is 250 feet above the water table. Remember, some of this is leaking, and it's 1 mile from the Columbia River.

So I ask the question: Is there a better site?

I think the government, over the years, has said there is a better place to put this stuff. In fact, this stuff is being processed and placed into canisters to go to one location, and that location is Yucca Mountain.

Now, Yucca Mountain should have been opened years ago. What do we have at this site at Yucca Mountain?

Right now, there is no nuclear waste on site. The waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground versus 10 feet. The waste would be 1,000 feet above the water table versus 250 feet. The waste would be 100 miles from the Colorado River versus 1 mile from the Columbia River.

So I think the choice is fairly clear. Our promise to Washington State, like our promise to the nuclear utilities, was that, as they created this mess, we as a Nation--national government--would take it over and that we would safely store it in a single repository. That repository is here. However, we're not there yet.

The question is: Why aren't we there?

Because we have a Senate that is blocking the ability to have the final votes and to pay for the final scientific study to get this moving. And who is the majority leader of the Senate? Senator Harry Reid. But let's look at the Senators from the region. Where are they at on this issue? Who are the Senators who border the Columbia River? Well, it's pretty telling.

Senator Murray has voted ``yes'' for Yucca Mountain. Senator Wyden from Oregon has voted ``yes.'' Senator Merkley has a ``no stated position.'' We don't know where he's at, although I think it would be a very important issue for that area. Senator Cantwell voted ``no'' on moving the high-level nuclear waste from Hanford to Yucca Mountain.

Why is looking at individual Senators and where they're at on this position important?

Because there are 100 Senators. With the way the rules in the other Chamber work, they really have to have 60 to

really move a bill on the floor, so I've been trying to do a tally of where these Senators are. Either in public statements or in having cast votes either in their Chamber or as former Members of the House, 55 say, yes, Yucca Mountain should be our long-term geological repository and that we should be taking all our nuclear waste and putting it in a safe, secure cave in a mountain in a desert. For 22, we don't know their positions, and that's a lot of Senators. For 23, we have ``nays.'' So, if Senator Cantwell would move from a ``nay'' to a ``yea,'' you're at 56. Then you really need only four more Senators, and there is a whole boatload. Some of them are up for reelection, and they haven't had a chance to make a public statement or to have a position on nuclear waste in 6 years.

What I find very confusing is that, in these 6 years, a lot of them come from States that have nuclear waste. Again, I like to talk about Hanford because this is Department of Defense waste that was created in developing the atomic bombs to win the Cold War--not the Cold War. Well, actually, they won the Cold War, too. They will say: a mutual assured destruction, an ability to have nuclear weapons to help protect Western Europe and to, really, protect the world. A lot of those weapons were created and developed right here at Hanford, but we still have the waste remaining. So we are looking for five more U.S. Senators to be able to move the bill on the floor and to pay for the final scientific study so as to keep our promise to the American people and to those who sacrificed land and location like Hanford.

The U.S. Government just kind of swooped in and said, We need this place. I think the story goes, We're going to do hydroelectric power. It's going to be cheap fuel because we're going to need a lot of energy. They displaced farmers. They took over the land, and we've left 53 million gallons of nuclear waste on site. We owe it to them to get it to a safe, secure location.

The Federal Government realized that in 1982 by passing a law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Federal Government then amended that law in 1987. In the years following, we moved diligently to finalize the preparations so that we could move forward. Then we hit a roadblock, and that roadblock was the election of President Obama, who made a promise to the majority leader of the Senate that we'll stop movement on Yucca Mountain--after 30 years, $15 billion, and no solution in sight. Now there is talk about, well, maybe we can do something else. I can guarantee you, if we do something else, it's going to take--what?--30 more years, and it's going to take $15 billion. At the end of that, we're going to come to the same conclusion where we're not going to have a solution.

So, when you hear people talk about interim storage, we have interim storage. Guess where it's at? It's around our major metropolitan areas. It's around Chicago. It's around Boston, Massachusetts. It's around Los Angeles. We have interim storage, and that's our nuclear utilities. Now we have interim storage in Hanford, Washington.

It is time for us as a body to man up--to accept our responsibilities, to finish the scientific study, and to have a long- term geological repository underneath a mountain in a desert so that we keep our promises and so that we protect this land for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and the diligence. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 2012, I offered an amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill to do the final scientific study to certify Yucca Mountain as the repository for high-level nuclear waste in this country, and I was joined by a large bipartisan amount from this Chamber, 326 ``yes'' votes, which I appreciate my colleagues who supported this amendment.

Among those in the Michigan delegation, which has 15 Members, there were 11 ``yes'' votes and only four ``no'' votes. Why is this all important? Because what I've tried to do over the past year and a half is help the educational process in explaining where nuclear waste is in this country and where it should be. We did pass a law back in 1982. I wasn't here then. Many of us were not. Then there were amendments to that law in 1987 that said Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be our repository, a long-term geological repository for high-level nuclear waste.

In Michigan, there are five nuclear power plants. They are all located along the Great Lakes. There's three on Lake Michigan, one on, I think, Lake Erie, right next to large bodies of water. Let's compare one of those, Cook, which has high-level nuclear waste on-site next to Lake Michigan, to where it should be, which is Yucca Mountain.

Currently at Cook, there are 1,433 metric tons of uranium of spent fuel on-site. At Yucca Mountain, which should be our single repository, there's currently none. Again, we started this in 1982. If it was at Yucca Mountain, it would be stored 1,000 feet underground. At Cook, it's stored aboveground in pools and in casks. If it was at Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. At Cook, the nuclear waste is 19 feet above the water table. At Yucca Mountain, it would be 100 miles from the Colorado River where it is right next to Lake Michigan.

Yucca Mountain is obviously a mountain in a desert. There is no safer place.

So, as I mentioned, in the vote total from my colleagues here on the floor, we addressed this on the floor. We took a vote, 326 out of 425. That's a huge bipartisan majority.

Where do the Senators stand on this position? Well, you have three ``yes'' votes and one ``no'' vote. And actually, the ``no'' vote is a very good friend of mine, a former classmate in the House, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, who has voted against moving that nuclear waste out of her State into a mountain underneath the desert.

And part of this process is, because it is now politicized with the majority leader blocking any movement on this--elections have consequences; they matter--and it's time to educate the public throughout the country about which Senators support moving nuclear waste out of their State to a single repository and who does not. And, unfortunately, my friend Senator Stabenow is on the list as not being helpful.

I also have done this numerous times. I have gone through the whole country and covered all the Senators as far as public statements or actual votes. And as you see, we have 55 Senators who said, yes, let's move this to Yucca Mountain. You would think, oh, that is a simple majority. It should be done. But the Senate operates on interesting rules. They have to have 60. We have 22 who have never taken a position, either ``yes'' or ``no'' or any public statement. Some of these have served 5\1/2\ years. It's pretty amazing that we have such an important issue pending as this, and the Senate has yet to get on record. If only five of these 22 would say ``yes,'' we could continue to move forward on addressing our nuclear waste issues.

Now, nuclear waste is not just spent nuclear fuel. It's World War II defense waste that might be in Hanford, Washington. It could be scientific waste that might be in Idaho or in Tennessee. And especially after Fukushima Daiichi and the Blue Ribbon Commission, we have to have a single long-term geological repository.

We've gone on record in the House. We passed a law that said it should be Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It's time for the Senators to get past their leadership and do what's in the best interest of this country and their own individual States.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor once again to reiterate Federal law, a law that was passed in 1982, called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and the amendments offered in 1987, which said that Yucca Mountain would be the long-term geological repository for our nuclear waste in this country. It's unfortunate that I have to keep coming down on the floor to address this issue because of the administration's position to defund, derail, stop, and to actually break Federal law.

To do that, not only do I just talk about the legal aspects of the Federal law, but I have been going around the country, identifying locations where we currently have high-level nuclear waste, and have been asking the basic question: Would you rather have it at location A or at location B?

So, today, we return to Pennsylvania, to a power plant called Limerick. Limerick has 1,143 metric tons of uranium spent fuel on site. At Limerick, the waste is stored above the ground in pools and in casks. It is 20 feet above the groundwater, and it is on the Schuylkill River, which is 40 miles from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That is where we currently store high-level nuclear waste.

Now, compare that to where we should by Federal law store high-level nuclear waste--in a place defined in law under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act: Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. This tells you it's a government job. We've only been working on it for about 30 years, and we've only spent about $15 billion to study, research, and ascertain that Yucca Mountain is a suitable location.

So, at Yucca Mountain, since we've spent approximately 30 years and $15 billion, how much nuclear waste do we have on site? Zero.

If we had it, where would it be stored? It would be stored 1,000 feet underground. It would be stored 1,000 feet above the water table, and it would be over 100 miles from the Colorado River. There is no safer place in the country, and there is no more studied location than Yucca Mountain. It just makes sense.

What is a better location: next to a major river that feeds into the major metropolitan area of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or underneath a mountain in a desert? I would submit to you that underneath a mountain in a desert is the proper location.

So what is the holdup? Well, the holdup is the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid. More compelling are the other Senators from his party who are allowing Senator Reid to block this, which is a detriment to their own States. We are going to talk about two in particular, but we're looking at four Senators from two States--Senator Casey, Senator Toomey, Senator Manchin, and Senator Rockefeller.

Senator Toomey is already on record as supporting Yucca Mountain. In fact, I quote him here:

The alternative is what we have now--highly radioactive 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 this stuff deep in Yucca Mountain.

The other Senator is quoted, but has got question marks here because, in his being a Senator for 5\1/2\ years, we don't know his position of whether he thinks storing high-level nuclear waste at Limerick is a better plan than placing it underneath a mountain in a desert. He understands the concern and the need.

He is quoted as saying:

As a Senator from a State with nine commercial reactors--

this being one--and 10 million people living within 50 miles

of those reactors, I can tell you that nuclear security is

extremely important to Pennsylvanians.

So my question is, which is the question posed here: Will you state a position on whether you think Yucca Mountain is that location since it's in Federal law?

Overall, why is this important? As I've been coming down to the floor for the past year and a half, we've done a tally sheet of where Senators stand based upon their votes or their public comments. We have 55 Senators who say, yes, Yucca Mountain is the place we ought to go. Of course, if you follow closely in the parliamentary processes between the two Chambers, you really need 60 to move a bill in the Senate. It's over five short. We need Senator Casey to get on record in support of Yucca Mountain.

Mr. Speaker, I come back on the floor as I have almost weekly throughout this entire Congress for 2 years to talk about the issue of high-level nuclear waste and what are we to do about it. And I really applaud my colleagues who joined me on June 6, 2012, on an amendment to a spending bill. It was a bipartisan vote; 326 Members of Congress supported finishing the scientific study on Yucca Mountain. That's the money that we had appropriated and that Senator Reid and President Obama did not spend for the scientific study. Then, in the last two cycles, Senator Reid has been blocking additional money for finishing the scientific study. So 226 Republicans and 98 Democrats joined me to really stress the point that we've got to finish this.

Yucca Mountain started in 1982 with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It was the defined location--it is the defined location--under current law under the amendments passed in 1987. To not fulfill and not to move forward is, in my estimation, breaking the law of the

land. And who's complicit in this is our friends on the other side and the President of the United States.

Now, how does that affect the rest of the Nation and the Senators involved and Members involved? Well, we compare the current site of Yucca Mountain to where nuclear waste is located around this country. Yucca Mountain currently has no nuclear waste on-site. We've already spent $15 million over 20 years trying to finish this project. It would be stored a thousand feet underground, it would be a thousand feet above the water table, and it would be a hundred miles from the Colorado River.

Well, let's look at where we have nuclear waste, and nuclear waste is defined by a lot of different titles. Some is just spent fuels from nuclear utilities. A lot of our nuclear waste is defense waste: reprocessed, weaponized uranium or the chemicals needed to effect that.

So we have a Department of Energy location at Idaho National Labs. How much waste is in Idaho right now? We've got 5,090 canisters on- site. Waste is stored above the ground and in pools. Waste is 500 feet above the water table and waste is 50 miles from Yellowstone National Park, a major tourist destination for many of our citizens throughout this country.

This is a Senate issue, really, and not a House issue anymore since the House is on record, especially with this vote this year of 326 of our colleagues in support. Where are the Senators? The last time I came down to the floor, I talked about the State of Missouri and Senator McCaskill, who is undecided after being a U.S. Senator for 5\1/2\ years. Well, now I turn to Montana, who's a neighbor to Idaho, and another undecided Senator, Senator Jon Tester. Can you imagine being a U.S. Senator for 5\1/2\ years, having nuclear waste in the State next to you and never having a position on what do we do with the final position on nuclear waste, whether it's nuclear waste in spent fuel or whether it's nuclear waste in our defense industry?

A place like Hanford, Washington, where we have millions of gallons of toxic nuclear waste that's designed to go to Yucca Mountain, couldn't a U.S. Senator in 5\1/2\ years say, I think yes, or I think no? Why is that important? You look at the total tally of what we've done over the past year and a half trying to identify where Senators stand. We have 55 Senators who support moving forward on Yucca Mountain. We have 22 question marks, one of them being Senator Tester from Montana. And then we have 23 identified ``no'' votes. Really, to close debate, based upon the Senate rules, you need 60. If we can move Senator McCaskill and Senator Tester, that brings us to 57 Senators and really a game-changing position to resolve this issue of high-level nuclear waste, which is pretty much throughout the country.

In my own State, my colleagues here on the floor in the State of Illinois, we are the largest nuclear-generating State in the country. We have six locations, 11 reactors. Some are right on Lake Michigan, Wisconsin; nuclear power plants right on Lake Michigan, Michigan; nuclear power plants right on Lake Michigan. Would you rather have high-level nuclear waste in the desert underneath a mountain or would you rather have it next to Lake Michigan or 50 miles from Yellowstone National Park? I think the answer is simple.

This has become politicized because of the Majority Leader of the Senate and his partner in crime, the President of the United States. It's time for us to move on good public policy: identify, centrally locate, and store high-level nuclear waste underneath a mountain in a desert.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be down here.

This is why this provision of this bill is really pertinent to the highway bill. Here it is: Flex concrete, fly ash, lighter, more durable.

I have two documents I brought to the floor. The second one reads in the acknowledgments:

This document was prepared by the U.S. EPA in cooperation

with the following agencies and associations: Department of

Energy, Federal Highway Administration, American Coal Ash

Association, and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.

What is interesting about these two books, one published in June 2003, the other one published in 2005, is they go through all of the great uses of fly ash in construction, and I would like to read just a few of those.

Here's one: ``Fly ash improves workability for pavement of concrete.''

Remember, a DOT book, EPA approved, DOE approved.

The next one has: ``Fly ash concrete is used in severe exposure applications such as the decks and piers of Tampa Bay's Sunshine Skyway Bridge.''

Nice photo here, beautiful bridge. So this is not new. This is reaffirming what the construction industry has been doing for decades. And actually in this other pamphlet, I'll talk about even greater use.

Here's another one: ``Fly ash concrete finishing.''

Again, this is a Federal Highway Administration book, Department of Energy book, sponsored by the U.S. EPA, all saying good things about fly ash in road construction.

``Full-depth reclamation of a bituminous road.''

Another one: ``Flowable fill used in a utility trench application,'' all dealing with fly ash.

``Fly Ash in Structural Fills and Embankments''; a nice photo of them using that in the construction sector.

Also, ``Soil Stabilization to Improve Soil Strength,'' all using fly ash applications.

We have a highway bill, and that's why this provision is very, very important; because if the EPA has its way and they label fly ash as toxic, guess what, no more flex concrete, no more building of buildings that have fly ash applications.

This is one of my favorite ones: ``Use of Ash in Construction Through the Ages. In ancient times, the Romans added volcanic ash to concrete to strengthen structures such as the Roman Pantheon and the Coliseum-- both of which still stand today.

``The first major use of coal fly ash in concrete in the United States occurred in 1942 to repair a tunnel spillway at the Hoover Dam.

``One of the most impressive concrete structures in the country, the Hungry Horse Dam near Glacier National Park in Montana, was constructed from 1948

to 1952, with concrete containing''--you guessed it--``fly ash.''

We're in Washington, D.C.

One of the great things we see here, ``In Washington, D.C., both the metropolitan area subway system (Metro) and the new Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center were built with''--you guessed it--fly ash and concrete.

``Other significant structures utilizing coal fly ash in concrete include the `Big Dig' in Boston and the decks and piers of Tampa Bay's Sunshine Skyway Bridge.''

That's why this is applicable to the highway bill. I commend my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my Republican colleagues talk about the Constitution and how a bill becomes a law.

I taught freshman civics. And when a bill passes both Chambers, the bill then goes to the President. The President then signs a bill. It becomes a law. The job of the Chief Executive is to enforce the law, as signed and as passed.

Like the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it is the law of the land. The amendments passed in 1987 identified Yucca Mountain as the sole geological repository for nuclear waste in this country. The problem is, it's not being enforced by the President, who is complicit with the majority leader in the Senate, Senator Reid, in stopping the project.

So over the past year, I have been coming down to the floor and identifying where we're at on the status of what do we do with high- level nuclear waste. And I have gone through the whole country. I have identified all the Senators and where they stand. We actually have a majority of Senators--55 of them--who support high-level nuclear waste being stored at Yucca Mountain. We have 23 that either have made statements of ``no'' or 22 that we don't know their position. Can you imagine being a U.S. Senator on a very important position, never having to state your position on what to do with high-level nuclear waste or defense waste, especially if it's in your own State, and never being forced to come to a position.

Over the past year, we've been going around the country identifying all these locations. And now the time for truth has come, to really start narrowing down on individual States and Senators who should at least state their position.

So I return to my next-door neighbor State, the State of Missouri. I live in the St. Louis metropolitan area. I represent parts of 30 counties in southern Illinois. But I am very close to the State of Missouri. In fact, I root for the Cardinals, the Rams, the Blues. And if the University of Missouri's not playing the Fighting Illini, I'll root for the Missouri Tigers.

Missouri has a nuclear power plant called Callaway. And what I did months ago, I came down on the floor--these are old posters--and compared Callaway to Yucca Mountain. Right now, Callaway has 615 metric tons of uranium spent fuel on site; Yucca has none. Waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground; waste is being stored in pools above ground. Waste would be 1,000 feet from the water table; at Callaway, it's 65 feet above the groundwater. At Yucca, the waste would be 100 miles from the Colorado River; at Callaway, it's only 5 miles from the Missouri River.

So the State of Missouri needs an answer by their elected Members of what should they do, how should we handle the nuclear waste at Callaway? Well, Senator Blunt has already stated his position that he supports moving nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. In fact, in a floor vote just 2 weeks ago, eight of the nine Members of Congress--a bipartisan majority--said nuclear waste should be in Yucca Mountain, or at least we should finish the scientific study to see if it's feasible versus keeping it in Missouri. The Members of the House who voted in support of the Shimkus amendment were Representative Akin, Representative Clay, Representative Cleaver, Representative Emerson, Representative Graves, Representative Hartzler, Representative Long, and Representative Luetkemeyer. Of course we know Senator Blunt supports it.

Now we focus on Senator McCaskill. This is no surprise to her--I've talked to her personally about this--that there would be a time when eventually she needs to state, does she support high-level nuclear waste being stored in Missouri? Does she support a long-term geological storage underneath a mountain in a desert in Nevada?

If she would make a statement, we could then move her from the undecided to either a nay or a yea. And if a yea, that would bring us to 56. We're actually trying to see if we can get 60 United States Senators to say, Yeah, we support moving forward. We've only spent $15 billion, going back to 1982, to prepare, locate the site.

Yucca Mountain is not just a mountain on its own but it's at the nuclear test site. It's bigger than the State of Rhode Island, the Federal grounds. It's Federal property. And so we come down on the floor--and we'll be doing this in the following weeks--highlighting individual Senators who are either undecided, no commitment, no position on what should be the disposition of high-level nuclear waste in their State, where it should go, and at least get them on the record as far as this issue.

Again, this law was passed in 1982. The amendment passed identifying Yucca Mountain as the long-term geological repository was then signed in 1987. We would just ask the administration to follow the law.