Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the dedication of the administration, staff and students of Greenville Elementary School in Greenville, Illinois, who went above and beyond in caring for, and ultimately saving the life of, one of the school's kindergarteners.

Emma Young started kindergarten at Greenville Elementary this year, but Emma is not your typical kindergartener. Since she was very young, Emma suffered seizures and unconsciousness due to a condition that doctors were unable to diagnose due to a lack of data. Finally, doctors placed an implantable loop recorder in Emma's chest to collect data for up to three years in the hopes of collecting the information necessary to diagnose Emma's condition.

Emma's parents met with the school nurse to ensure that school staff were aware of her condition and knew what to do. But instead of just filing the information away, school staff made a superior effort to inform everyone involved with Emma's daily activities in the event that their help was needed in an emergency. The school nurse, Emma's teacher, and all the faculty and staff who had contact with Emma on a daily basis had a special meeting after school to learn about Emma's condition and about the monitor implanted in her chest. Her teacher made posters with her picture and a photo of the device, with step-by- step instructions for staff or substitutes to review. The staff even developed a plan called ``Code Emma'', and taught the other kindergarteners how to recognize when Emma needed help and how to announce a Code Emma.

This spring, Emma's mother, Jill, was at home when she received a breathless call from the school secretary informing her that Emma had suffered a seizure. She rushed to the school, where an ambulance had already arrived to take Emma to the hospital. Riding to the hospital, Jill was grateful for the fast response by the school staff, but wondered if the staff had remembered to press the button on Emma's device so that the data could be collected, and a diagnosis finally determined. Emma's condition returned to normal over the next few minutes, and she was released from the hospital that day. An hour later, Emma's cardiologist called and told Jill that the data had been collected, and Emma's condition could finally be diagnosed and treated. Emma now has a pacemaker and is receiving life-saving treatment, thanks to the doctors and nurses who worked with her, but perhaps most importantly, due to the students and staff at Greenville Elementary who called out and responded to the Code Emma.

Emma's mother writes that the students and staff at Greenville Elementary are deserving of recognition for their ``commitment to education, and their dedication to nurturing and loving children in the community. The lessons that are taught inside of the walls at Greenville Elementary are not just the mandated ones, but the ones that will mold these children into the types of individuals they will become.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to salute the entire team at Greenville Elementary for the good work they do in educating children in not just the Three Rs, but in caring for others and being good citizens. I am proud to represent such an outstanding community and such outstanding people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the 150th anniversary of an important community institution in Collinsville, Illinois.

In 1862, the Wilkerson Chapel was founded in Collinsville, and for 150 years it has served the people of Collinsville; along the way becoming the oldest and only African Methodist Episcopal Church in Collinsville. The church was originally located at the corner of South and Clinton Streets, on a piece of land donated by Mrs. Josiah Peers. In 1922, Wilkerson Chapel moved to its present location at 317 Summit Avenue.

The original land for the AME church was donated by a white woman in town, Mrs. Josiah Peers, and when the second location was built, the white churches in town donated such items as communion robes, a piano, and even the church bell. Marian Hoskin, an 81-year-old church member, talked about the harmony between the races which has always been an important part of Wilkerson Chapel's history, saying that, ``they always talk about this diversity situation here. And there was always prejudice on both sides of the fence. But we got along here. We have always worked together in this town.''

Today, Reverend Carl F. Berry is the current pastor, and under his leadership, Wilkerson Chapel continues its efforts to improve the lives of the citizens of Collinsville. The church continues its outreach efforts, which include open houses and cookouts, but also performances by Just Us and The Rest, the church choir, and work with the Collinsville Area Ministerial Alliance food pantry.

Before the church's 150th anniversary banquet, Rev. Berry told the local paper, ``The community is there for the church and the church is very much there for the community. This is truly about us sharing ourselves. The doors to the church are always open for service to the community.''

I am proud to salute the 150 years of service by the parishioners of the Wilkerson Chapel, as well as the example they have set for our community. I am honored to represent such great people and such a great community like Collinsville.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, has adequate funds to resume licensing activities for the Yucca nuclear waste repository as called for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but it refuses to do so. The NRC claims it has the legal authority to ignore the law duly enacted by this Congress if the agency isn't given enough money to ``finish the job.''

Under our Constitution, agencies are funded year to year. They are seldom, if ever, given enough money in 1 year to do everything the law tells them to do, especially for long-term projects. In 2008 when the Yucca Mountain licensing proceedings started, Congress appropriated NRC enough money to conduct the proceedings for that year. We sure didn't give it enough to complete the 3-year licensing proceeding. In 2009, we gave the NRC enough to carry out the proceeding for another year. The NRC didn't stop because it didn't have enough money to finish the job. In fact, NRC only stopped the licensing and refused to spend money appropriated for licensing based on the administration's policy decision that the site is no longer workable.

Now, after being hauled into Federal court for ignoring a statutory duty to decide the license application in 3 years, the NRC claims it doesn't have to follow the law because, while it has plenty of money to resume the licensing process and move it forward, it doesn't have enough money to finish it.

When we pass a law and tell an agency to do something and give it enough money to do a job during a given year, can the agency just thumb its nose and say, We're not going to do that job at all because Congress didn't give us enough money to finish the job next year?

No agency has ever successfully told a court not to make it follow the law because in some future year it might not get enough money to do the job the law requires. Allowing NRC to cancel Yucca would unconstitutionally shift the balance of powers to executive agencies to evade congressionally mandated legal obligations.

The Federal appellate court has made its displeasure with the NRC's legal position known. We need to do the same.

This is an outrageous unilateral decision to stop Yucca and not spend funds specifically appropriated for licensing activities. No agency can ignore a statutory duty to proceed with a project based on a subjective determination that adequate funds may not be available to complete the project in the future. We need to send a clear message to every agency this isn't how our Constitution works.

So on top of the over $10 million that the NRC has now to restart the licensing process, this amendment provides an additional $10 million in new funds so they can continue the process. The amendment is budget neutral and fully offset by taking funds from the DOE's departmental administration account.

We are asking DOE to do more with a little less by making modest cuts to an account for salaries and expenses.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to fund the legally required licensing process for Yucca Mountain so that the NRC, an independent government agency, has funding necessary to finish their thorough, objective, and technical review. In doing so, the NRC, not political games, will determine whether Yucca Mountain would make a safe repository. Having spent 30 years and $15 billion of ratepayer money, the American people at least deserve to find out the answer to whether Yucca is safe.

And whether you favor nuclear power or Yucca Mountain isn't the only issue. The core issue is whether laws we pass may be completely ignored by agencies if they think that some day they may not get enough money to finish the job. Allowing agencies to get away with this results in shifting more of our legislative powers to unelected agency bureaucrats.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Shimkus amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the floor again--this is my 13th time, really--doing a tour of the United States highlighting the locations where we currently store high-level nuclear waste in this country.

With the end of this location, I will have placed in the Record the position of our U.S. Senators in each one of these States on where they stand on either keeping high-level nuclear waste in their State at their location or helping us move to a centralized repository at Yucca Mountain in the desert in Nevada.

So let's go to the location. Here's Yucca Mountain, which is, by law, the site, based upon the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the amendments passed in 1987. So I'm comparing it to a place in Virginia very close by, the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station on North Anna Lake, which is a recreational lake that many people in Virginia know.

Yucca Mountain right now has currently no nuclear waste on site. What about North Anna? North Anna has 1,200 metric tons of uranium, spent nuclear fuel, on site.

If we had nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, where would it be? It would be stored 1,000 feet underground. Where is the nuclear waste stored at North Anna? It's stored above the ground in pools and in casks.

If it was at Yucca Mountain, as designed by law, where would it be in comparison to the groundwater? Well, it would be a thousand feet above the water table because Yucca Mountain is in a desert. What about North Anna? Well, it is 53 feet above the groundwater. And as you can see from the photo, it's right next to a major lake in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

If the waste was at Yucca Mountain, how far would it be from the largest body of water in the area? It would be 100 miles from the Colorado River. Again, from the photo, you see that North Anna is right next to the lake.

So let's look at the Senators from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and in their time serving, what's their position on where the nuclear waste should be? Should it stay in the Commonwealth of Virginia or should it move to the desert underneath a mountain?

Well, let's start with Senator Webb, who's not running for reelection. He's been in the Chamber now 5\1/2\ years. No stated position. It's kind of hard to believe you can be a U.S. Senator who has nuclear waste on site and does not have a stated position on whether you want nuclear waste stored right next to a recreational lake in your State or moved underneath a mountain in the desert. Senator Warner came 2 years after Senator Webb. He's been there 4 years. No stated position.

Why is this concerning? Well, we go to the total tally of our 100 U.S. Senators based on either votes taken in the Senate or public statements rendered, and this is what we have as of today. Remember, I've come to the floor 13 different times identifying nuclear waste storage facilities all around the country. Most of the time they're generating stations. Sometimes they're Department of Defense waste sites like Hanford, Washington, which is the first place that I talked about.

Based upon our tally, we have 55 votes for a high-level nuclear waste central repository at Yucca Mountain. We have 22 individuals--we noticed two today--who have never taken a position whether the high- level nuclear waste should be in their State, in their locality, or in the desert underneath a mountain. We also have 23 that have cast votes or made statements against that.

Now, why is this tally important? Well, it only takes 60 votes to move a piece of legislation in the U.S. Senate, cloture debate based upon a filibuster than a simple majority vote. So the question is: When will these 22 Senators at least make some position statement on the high-level nuclear waste repository?

Now, there are four other Senators that I've included in this--two from Alaska, two from Hawaii. They have no nuclear waste in their State. But Senator Begich from Alaska has no stated position. Senator Murkowski voted for the high-level nuclear waste storage site. She's also from Alaska. Senator Akaka voted ``no'' in a 2002 vote. Senator Inouye voted ``no'' in a 2002 vote. So that finishes the culmination of all the Senators.

Based upon the problem in Japan with Fukushima Daiichi and the issue of high-level nuclear waste, isn't it about time we stop this administration's attack and move to Yucca Mountain?

Madam Speaker, I've come back to the floor, as I have almost weekly since this Congress, to talk about nuclear waste.

It's kind of unique to follow my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) because we are a nuclearized country; we do have nuclear weapons. A lot of our nuclear weapons were developed from World War II. And guess where the waste still is from World War II? Still buried in silos under the ground in Hanford, Washington. That's a legacy of 50 years of nuclear waste that we still have yet to address--not including the nuclear waste for fuel, which is what I'm going to talk about today. I'm going to the State of Michigan and the State of Indiana.

Michigan has five nuclear reactors. They're all on the Great Lakes-- either Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, I think--and the waste is right next to these Great Lakes. So we want to do a comparison/contrast, as I do every week based upon a region of the country, and compare where the nuclear waste is in Michigan to where it should be, under Federal law-- the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the adjoining amendments passed in 1987--that says we need to consolidate our high-level nuclear waste and put it in one single repository that is underneath a mountain in a desert, and that place is Yucca Mountain.

So let's compare the two locations. I'm picking the Cook Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan, comparing it to Yucca Mountain. How much nuclear waste do we have at Yucca Mountain? Zero. How much do we have at Cook? We have 1,433 metric tons of uranium--this is of waste-- at just one nuclear facility at Cook.

Where is the waste stored? At Yucca, it would be 1,000 feet underground. Where is the nuclear waste stored at Cook? Well, it's stored above ground in pools and in casks. How is it compared to the groundwater issue? Well, at Yucca Mountain it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. As we know, at Cook it's 19 feet above the groundwater table.

Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the only body of water you can find in a desert, and that's the Colorado River. That's 100 miles away. How far is the nuclear waste at Cook? Well, you can see from the picture it is next to Lake Michigan. So in a comparison/contrast, it's easy to see that Yucca would be a safer place to put high-level nuclear waste than Cook Generating Station in Michigan.

So what have the U.S. Senators done from the surrounding States on this position of, should they have nuclear waste in their State or should they not? Senator Coats is supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Lugar is supportive of Yucca Mountain--I have quotes here that affirm that. Senator Levin has voted for Yucca Mountain and supports that. And our friend, my former classmate here in the Chamber--and she is a good friend of mine--Debbie Stabenow, has not supported Yucca Mountain.

So part of why I'm coming down to the floor is just to help paint the picture that there is nuclear waste all over this country--104 different reactors, not including our defense waste--and it's stored all over the place. Wouldn't it be better to have a centralized location to put the nuclear waste in? So I've been doing a tally of U.S. Senators, and we finally got over the 50 Senator mark. Because of the Senate rules, you know you have to break the filibuster. That's 60 votes.

It's interesting now, based upon the information, past information-- whether gleaned from votes or public statements--we have 54 U.S. Senators who say we ought to have Yucca Mountain as our single repository. We have 19 that we really have no record of a statement or a vote. And then we have 21 that have, either as a former House Member or a public statement, said, no, we don't think Yucca Mountain is a place for nuclear waste to go.

We still have a couple more States to go, and we're hoping that we get to a 60-vote position to make the claim throughout the country that these Senators should really deal with this issue of high-level nuclear waste, not just the spent fuel, but, as we talked about earlier, the defense waste in this country.

This was a promise made to the ratepayers of States that have nuclear power. The government said we're going to charge you extra for your electricity. We will take your money, and we will build a long-range geological repository for nuclear waste, and that's Yucca Mountain.

Mr. Speaker, before I talk about Yucca Mountain, let me just respond to my colleague from Virginia.

Since 2002, food stamps have increased 267 percent, and this reconciliation bill will cut, I think, about 3 percent. Again, since 2002, food stamps have increased 267 percent.

The Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years, so it's very difficult to admonish the House on the budget process when the Senate still has yet to pass a budget.

And what we're really concerned about is the hollowing out of our military force. If the sequestration goes on as planned, we'll have the smallest Air Force in the history of this country that we've ever seen before the Air Force was enacted, the smallest Navy since, I believe, 1915, and a huge decrease in our standing force. That's what the debate is about, and I look forward to having that chance on the floor.

As the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, one of my jurisdictional responsibilities is high-level nuclear waste. I've come to the floor numerous times to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, the various locations that we store high-level nuclear waste and compare it to where, by law, we should.

By law, we should, based upon the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and an amendment in 1987, we should be storing it underneath a mountain in a desert. So let's compare that location to a place in Perry, Ohio.

Perry, Ohio, has 452 metric tons of uranium of spent fuel on-site versus zero at Yucca Mountain. The waste is stored aboveground in pools and casks. The waste would be stored in Yucca Mountain 1,000 feet underground.

The waste at Perry would be 12 feet above the groundwater. At Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. And at Perry, it is located on Lake Erie, 35 miles from Cleveland, where Yucca Mountain, the waste is 100 miles from the Colorado River and probably 100-or-so-odd miles from Las Vegas, Nevada.

Clearly, in a comparison and contrast, if you want a safe and secure location--of course we also own the land around Yucca Mountain-- clearly, it's easy to determine that Yucca Mountain is a much safer place than on one of our Great Lakes.

So then I talk about, well, have the Senators addressed this in their past? Because the reason why we're not moving forward on Yucca Mountain is Majority Leader Reid has stopped it, along with President Obama.

Well, Senator Brown, when he was a House Member, voted for Yucca Mountain in 2002. So did Senator Portman. Both are Senators from the State of Ohio right now.

Senator Mitch McConnell has stated, and so he supports Yucca Mountain:

When it comes to nuclear energy, we have seen this

administration abandon plans and millions in taxpayer dollars

before without much consideration of the consequences. Take,

for example, its unwillingness to follow through on the

nuclear storage site, Yucca.

We've already spent about $15 billion at Yucca Mountain, and Leader McConnell is addressing that issue.

Senator Paul, so far, has been silent. We hope that he comes out with a stated position.

So what does that do to our tally of where Senators are? And we've reached over the 50-vote mark, based upon our analysis of past statements and past votes. With 51 Senators who would vote ``yes,'' that would be a simple majority if the Senate moved by majority standards. Nineteen are undecided--Senator Paul is our recent add--and 20 who identify, based on their past statements, having voted ``no'' or have made statements in opposition to Yucca Mountain.

Why is this important? It's important because we've spent over almost three decades now trying to find a safe, secure location to store high- level nuclear waste. With the Japanese event of last year, Fukushima Daiichi, and the debate on containment vessels and high-level nuclear waste, it is time now to move public policy, or the other body needs to impress upon Leader Reid that it is imperative for this country to have a centralized location.

With these 51 and, hopefully, more that we will identify in the next couple of weeks, we will have close to a 60-seat identification to say it can stop a filibuster, it can stop the majority leader, and it can move to do what we all know is in our best interest: to finally gather up in one centralized location our high-level nuclear waste.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor again, as I have in the past 2 years, to talk about the location of high-level nuclear waste around this country and compare and contrast it with where we have high-level nuclear waste, mostly spent nuclear fuel, but other types defined as waste, and compare it to where it should be based upon a 1982 law, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the 1987 amendment to that law which identified Yucca Mountain as the location where we should be storing high-level nuclear waste.

Today we go to the Pennsylvania and West Virginia areas, and we compare Yucca Mountain with a nuclear power plant called Limerick. At Yucca Mountain, currently there is no nuclear waste on site. At Limerick, there are 1,143 metric tons of uranium spent nuclear fuel on the site. At Yucca Mountain, the waste would be stored, if it's there, a thousand feet underground. At Limerick, you can see waste is stored aboveground in pools and casks. That's above ground.

If it was stored in Yucca Mountain, it would be a thousand feet above the water table. Why is that? Well, Yucca Mountain is in a desert, so that's why the water table is very, very low. Well, at Limerick, the waste is stored 20 feet above the groundwater.

Finally, Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Limerick is on the Schuylkill River 40 miles from Philadelphia. Yucca is about 100 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada. The importance of this is just to address with Fukushima Daiichi, and nuclear waste, and some difficulties we've had, and public policy being as defined by law. The question is, why do we still have nuclear waste in Pennsylvania right outside Philadelphia, and why don't we have it underneath a mountain in a desert?

The answer is--I know it would shock people--politics here in Washington, especially in the other Chamber, not complying with the law, along with an administration that is in league with those who have blocked a final scientific study for Yucca Mountain. What I have been doing is going around and looking at the senators from the States around the nuclear power plants that I have been addressing.

Where do they stand individually? Well, Senator Casey, a relatively new Senator, has really been silent on that, although he has said, as a Senator from a State with 9 commercial reactors and 10 million people living within 50 miles of those reactors, I can tell you that nuclear security is extremely important to Pennsylvanians. Obviously the nuclear waste is not that important to him since he has been silent on Yucca Mountain.

Senator Toomey is quoted as saying the alternative is what we have now, highly active radio waste located at 131 sites in 39 States, including nuclear power plants close to the Lehigh Valley. That cannot be as safe and secure as burying the waste deep in Yucca Mountain. I would agree with the Senator.

Senator Manchin from West Virginia, who is relatively new, has been silent on what we should do with the high-level nuclear waste. Part of this process is to identify that and hopefully have him come out in a statement. Senator Rockefeller voted ``no.'' His statement is, nuclear energy is touted by its proponents as a carbon-free option that should have its share of the Nation's electricity generation expanded.

Yet we have never figured out what to do about the permanent storage and human health and safety concerns regarding high radioactive waste with a half-life measured in tens of thousands of years. That's where I very much disagree with the Senator, because the Federal Government has spent 20 years and $9 billion studying Yucca Mountain. Unprecedented 100 million-year projections were completed showing Yucca's safety. There is no safer place in the entire United States for nuclear waste than Yucca Mountain.

So, then, I've been doing a tally across the country of the Senators and where they stand as of today. We have 48 who support Yucca Mountain and high-level nuclear waste; 18, we don't know. Hopefully, they'll get a chance to cast a vote. And we have 20 who are ``no.'' In the filibuster world that operates in the other Chamber, you know we really need 60. We're very close. In fact, if 12 of these 18 undecideds are ``yes,'' there should be no reason why we would allow Senator Reid and the President of the United States to block further development and movement to take all of our high-level nuclear waste and store it safely in a mountain in a desert.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor again to continue to identify and educate you on the various locations where we store high- level nuclear waste around this country and the various positions that our colleagues in the other Chamber have voted either for or against, in hopes that eventually the public will become well informed and that they will take action through their elected officials to do even what the Blue Ribbon Commission suggested, which is decide and locate a long-term geological storage facility.

This is not new. We've been doing it for decades. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was established in 1982. The amendments were passed through this Chamber and signed into law in 1987, which identified a long-term geological repository at a place called Yucca Mountain in the desert in Nevada.

What I've been attempting to do throughout this past year and a half--I chair a subcommittee that has direct responsibility for this-- is identify different locations. So today we go to a place very close to here. In fact, I think it's only 43 miles from the District of Columbia, and that's a place called Calvert Cliffs. I like to compare and contrast it with where our nuclear waste should be stored, not in a decade or two from now, but at this very moment where it should be.

Calvert Cliffs is in Maryland, and at Calvert Cliffs there are 1,300 metric tons of uranium, of spent fuel, onsite versus Yucca Mountain, which is a mountain in a desert where we have no nuclear waste onsite. At Calvert Cliffs, this spent nuclear fuel is stored above the ground in pools and in casks above the ground. If it were stored at Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet underground. At Calvert Cliffs, the nuclear waste is stored 85 feet above the groundwater, and at Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. Finally, at Yucca Mountain, the nearest body of water is the Colorado River, about 100 miles. As you can see here in this photo, Calvert Cliffs is right next to Chesapeake Bay.

Yucca Mountain is about 90 miles from Las Vegas, maybe 100 miles from Las Vegas. Calvert Cliffs is a straight line of 43 miles from Washington, D.C. The Senators from the surrounding areas, how did they vote? You would think they wouldn't want high-level nuclear waste next to Chesapeake Bay, 43 miles from the capital city. Well, Senator Carper voted ``no'' in 2002. Senator Coons, a new Member, we don't know his position. That's part of coming down here. I'm pretty sure that if the majority leader of the Senate would call a vote and this issue was thoroughly debated, it would pass on the floor of the Senate because we have a lot of Senators who have yet to declare their position. Here is Senator Cardin, a former Member of the House, who voted ``yea'' in 2002 for Yucca Mountain. Senator Mikulski, the same; different Chamber, voted ``no.''

How does our national tally go? Currently we have 47 U.S. Senators who have a stated position in support of Yucca Mountain. We have over 16 that have never cast a vote or declared their position on what we do with high-level nuclear waste, either spent fuel or nuclear waste, in the processing of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

We have 19 who have had a position of ``no'' at some time in their career. So it's very, very important to continue this debate, Mr. Speaker, to continue to come down on the floor to talk about the Federal law as it is to date.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed in 1982; the amendment was agreed to in 1987. The amendment identified Yucca Mountain as our long- term geological repository to store high-level nuclear waste. The time is well past since we should be doing this. In fact, we actually pay utilities to hold their nuclear waste since it's our responsibility to take the waste.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a couple of weeks since I've been able to come down to the floor and talk about high-level nuclear waste. As you know, through the past year, I've been coming to the floor. I am chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee. We have jurisdiction over a lot of different types of waste. One of those is nuclear waste.

I also have come to the floor to just give a short history lesson on where we're at, where we should be, and the problems that stand in our way. In 1982, the national government passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In 1987 amendments were then offered that said we need to have a long-term geological repository and that repository should be Yucca Mountain.

So I've been going around the country and looking at the different places where we have high-level nuclear waste, whether it's on the west coast, the State of Florida, Massachusetts, in the central part. Today I go to the State of Colorado, which has nuclear waste in the State, and I want to compare it to where it should be.

As a review, Yucca Mountain is, by law, defined as the place where we should put high-level nuclear waste. Currently, there's no nuclear waste on-site. The waste would be stored a thousand feet underground. The waste would be a thousand feet above the water table because it's in a desert. And the waste is 100 miles from the Colorado River.

Now, compare that to the nuclear waste that is at a location called Fort St. Vrain. Currently, there are 30 million tons of uranium, of spent fuel, on-site. The waste is stored above-ground in vaults. The waste is less than 25 feet above the groundwater, and the waste is 1 mile from the South Platte River. A mile from the South Platte River, 100 miles from the Colorado River.

So part of this debate is, why haven't we moved and complied with Federal law? Well, we all know that. It's the Senator from the State of Nevada, who's made it his personal crusade to block our ability to proceed and has blocked funding for the final scientific study.

This whole debate has moved into the political arena, not the arena of law, and in the U.S. Senate you really need 60 votes to move public policy. So I've been coming down to the floor and looking at Senators from States that surround Colorado and see where they have either declared their position or cast votes on the national repository, Yucca Mountain.

As you see, from Texas, you've got Senator Cornyn, who's a yes; Senator Hutchison is a yes. Oklahoma, Senator Coburn's a yes; Senator Inhofe's a yes. New Mexico, Senator Bingaman has voted no. Senator Bennet from Colorado is new, hasn't really stated a position. We'd like to see him get on the record.

My two friends, the Udall cousins, both Tom and Mark, we will check the record, but I believe that they've cast a vote in the Senate, and if not, they haven't stated a recent position.

Why is that important? Because we've been tallying where the Senators are, and right now we really need 60 votes to come to conclusion. We've already spent $15 billion, and we have no nuclear waste on-site. Right now, based upon our calculations, we have 45 Senators that would support moving of high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. We have 17 who we don't know their position, and we have 16 who have stated or they have voted in the past as no. So our challenge here is to get these Senators on record and show the collective will.

Now, we've done it in the House. We've had votes in the House in which we had about 300 Members of this Chamber, a bipartisan vote, in support of moving forward on the funding, the scientific funding to finally finish a single repository at Yucca Mountain.

It's very important for our national security. It's very important for all the locations around. We already have 104 nuclear power plants in this country; all have nuclear waste on-site.

We also have nuclear waste that's involved with our defense industry back at Fort St. Vrain. That waste was supposed to be transported to Idaho, but litigation has kept it there. If we don't move that waste, then by 2035 the Federal Government will have to pay the State of Colorado $15,000 a day until we take the responsibility that we have committed to as a national government.

I appreciate this time, Mr. Speaker, to come down. We'll continue to get

through all the U.S. Senators and attempt to try to get to the magic number of 60.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Woodlawn High School Cardinals boys' basketball team, winners of the 2012 IHSA Class 1A State Championship.

After a successful 27 5 season, the Cardinals entered this year's tournament, where they defeated the Winnetka Raiders to advance to the championship game against the Carrollton Hawks. In a closely fought match, the Cardinals came from behind in the fourth quarter to defeat the Hawks by a margin of 48 45 and earn their school the first state basketball championship in its history.

My congratulations go to Head Coach Shane Witzel and Assistant Coach Scott Owens and the dedicated players of the 2012 State Champion Woodlawn Cardinals team: Ty Coleman, Jayson Hapeman, Kris Harlow, Christian Hollenkamp, Logan Issac, Matt Kennedy, Gabe Owens, Brendan Petersen, Chase Phelps, Ryan Richardson, Jake Robinson, Bryson Sanders, A.J. Webb, and Logan Wollerman.

These student-athletes have made their community proud and have represented Woodlawn honorably. I congratulate them on their championship and wish them the best of luck next season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Edwardsville Intelligencer, a local newspaper serving Madison County, Illinois, on its 150th anniversary.

First called the Madison Intelligencer, the first weekly issue was published on November 13, 1862. It has been in continuous operation since, and it can proudly call itself Edwardsville's oldest business. In the last century and a half, the Edwardsville Intelligencer has expanded to daily publication and has covered all the pivotal moments in our nation's history. It has withstood the inventions of radio, television, and the internet and has recently expanded to include an e- Edition, which complements the print edition's continued success.

During its long history, the Intelligencer has been an easily accessible source of information and culture in the region. It has a constant presence in the community. For decades it has participated in local charities and community events, and it even distributes newspapers to local schools at no charge. It is truly a vital resource for the greater Edwardsville area.

I am pleased to congratulate the Edwardsville Intelligencer on its 150th anniversary, and I thank them for their contributions to the community. I wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Breese Central High School Cougars upon winning the 2012 IHSA Class 2A Boys' State Basketball Championship.

This victory is the perfect end to a remarkable season, in which the Cougars recorded 32 wins and only one loss. The Cougars beat the South Holland Sting to advance to the championship game, where they defeated the Normal Pioneers 53 47 and earned their first state championship.

I would like to recognize Head Coach Stan Eagleson, Assistant Coaches David Thomas, Kurt Peters, Jeremy Shubert, Donny Petterson, and Ryan Meyer, Trainer Marty Stewart, and the players themselves: Justin Becker, Brandon Book, Nick Grapperhaus, Tanner Imming, Luke Jackson, Greg Meyer, Luis Perez, Austin Rickhoff, Kyler Scheer, Andrew Schulte, Noah Stockmann, Gavin Thomas, and Jacob Timmermann.

Congratulations to the Breese Central Cougars for their championship and their incredible season. I look forward to next season, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the village of Sainte Marie, Illinois, upon its 175th anniversary.

Sainte Marie was founded in 1837 by immigrants from eastern France. They were a group of several related families, who, fearful of outside influences on the Church, decided to establish a colony in America, where they might practice their religion as they saw fit. To this end, they elected to send one of their children, Joseph Picquet, to find a suitable place for their settlement. At the time, Picquet was only 19 years old, but he was wise beyond his years.

After arriving in America in 1835, Picquet lived briefly in Philadelphia, learning the language and local customs. He then spent most of 1836 exploring America and her vast wilderness. After extensive travel, he settled on a location for the colony in southern Illinois on the Embarras River, not far from Vincennes, Indiana. He chose the site for its untapped resources and the strong French presence in the area.

Having found the site for the colony, Picquet then returned home to collect his family, and in June of 1837, Picquet and 24 of his relatives arrived in what would become the village of Sainte Marie. While preparing their settlement, they stayed on a nearby farm, and their construction efforts were blessed by Father Stephen Theodore Badin, the first priest to be ordained in the United States.

On October 28, 1837, Picquet and the other settlers took possession of the land, which they dedicated to the Virgin Mary. They called it a Colonie des Freres, since they were all related by either blood or marriage. Largely due to Picquet's efforts, the colony quickly grew and became a cultural center for the region. It soon had such facilities as a saw mill, a post office, a church, a free school, and even a railroad station. The settlement was renamed Sainte Marie, retaining the spelling of their French heritage, and in 1865 Sainte Marie was officially chartered by the State of Illinois.

Today Sainte Marie remains a charming rural community which teaches strong morals and family values. Its citizens are proud of their town and its history, as well as the many businessmen and professionals it has produced. This summer the people of Sainte Marie will honor the town's history and its citizens with its Quartoseptcentennial Celebration. In recognition of this momentous occasion, I ask my fellow members of this House to join with me as I wish them success in their upcoming festivities and in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. John Rowe, as the chairman and CEO of Exelon, is retiring upon closing of the company's merger with Constellation Energy.

John joined Unicom, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, in 1998. He was hired to help fix its troubled nuclear fleet and prepare the company for deregulation.

In both 2008 and 2009, Institutional Investor named John the best electric utility CEO in America. In the 14 years of John's leadership, Exelon has been named by Forbes as one of ``America's Best Companies,'' a ``Global 2000 Company,'' the ``Best Managed Utility Company,'' to Fortune's list of the World's Most Admired Companies, one of Businessweek's Top 50 companies, and Utility of the Year by Electric Light and Power.

Throughout John's career, he has been an active leading voice in energy and environmental policy, delivering policy addresses and testifying before Congress, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and State regulators.

John and his wife, Jeanne, are committed participants in civic and cultural activities. They are committed to a wide range of a variety of civic activities, with a focus on education and diversity. The Rowes are particularly proud of their substantial commitment to founding the Rowe-Clark Math and Science Academy. And he is a board of trustees chairman of the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know John Rowe during my tenure in Congress. I can say that his impact on the energy industry will be long felt by both policymakers and Exelon customers. I wish him and his family well in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about someone that I have come to know through my work on the Energy and Commerce Committee over the years, John W. Rowe. Mr. John Rowe, the chairman and CEO of Exelon, is retiring upon closing of the company's merger with Constellation Energy. His retirement marks the end of nearly 14 years at Exelon and his 28-year tenure as the longest-serving electric utility CEO. It also brings to a close a long career in the utility business in which Rowe has distinguished himself as both an industry and civic leader.

John joined Unicom, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison in 1998. He was hired

to help fix its troubled nuclear fleet and prepare the company for deregulation. He shepherded the merger of Unicom and PECO Energy and has led the combined company, Exelon, since it formation in 2000. The Unicom-PECO merger is widely regarded as the most successful merger in the industry's history. The combined company serves 5.4 million customers and operates the largest fleet of nuclear power plants in the country.

In both 2008 and 2009, Institutional Investor named Rowe the best electric utility CEO in America. He has also received the Edison Electric Institute Distinguished Leadership Award, Keystone Center Leadership in Industry Award, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce Burnham Award for Business and Civic Leadership, induction into the Chicago Business Hall of Fame, University of Arizona Eller College of Management Executive of the Year Award and the Union League of Philadelphia Founder's Award for Business Leadership.

In the 14 years of John Rowe's leadership, Exelon has been named by Forbes as one of ``America's Best Companies,'' a ``Global 2000 Company,'' and ``Best Managed Utility Company'' to Fortune's list of the ``World's Most Admired Companies,'' one of BusinessWeek's ``Top 50'' companies, and ``Utility of the Year'' by Electric Light and Power.

Mr. Rowe served as chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the Commercial Club of Chicago, and the Massachusetts Business Roundtable.

Rowe and his management team succeeded in turning around the ComEd nuclear fleet--increasing the capacity factor from less than 50% in 1997 to more than 92% in every year since 2000 and average refueling outage days were reduced by half. Exelon today is the largest and widely regarded as the best nuclear plant fleet in the U.S.

Responding to massive reliability issues in ComEd's service territory in 1998 and 1999, Rowe spearheaded the effort to improve system reliability that has helped reduce the frequency and duration of customer outages by 20% since 2001. ComEd has spent more than $5 billion on improving the system since 1998. ComEd now performs in the top quartile of its peer companies for reliability.

Under Rowe's leadership, PECO has been an industry leader in reliability performance, moving from the top quartile to top decile in infrastructure modernization and the use of equipment to eliminate and reduce the length of outages for customers.

Throughout his career, John has been a leading voice on energy and environmental policy delivering policy addresses and testifying before Congress, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, state regulators and other. He was a pioneer on industry efforts for utility restructuring and a fierce advocate for environmental stewardship and diversity.

Perhaps more than any other CEO, Rowe has made environmental stewardship a hallmark of his tenure at each of his companies. While at CMP, he refocused its energy procurement strategy to conservation, energy efficiency and cogeneration.

John and his wife Jeanne are committed participants in civic and cultural activities. They are committed to a wide variety of civic activities with a focus on education and diversity.

The Rowes have established the Rowe Family Charitable Trust. Over the past decade, the Rowes and the family Trust have contributed more than $19.7 million to organizations including the University of Wisconsin, the Illinois Institute of Technology, the Chicago History Museum, the Field Museum, Misericordia, the Chicago Shakespeare Theater, Metropolitan Family Services and Northwestern Hospital.

The Rowes are particularly proud of their substantial commitment to founding the Rowe-Clark Math and Science Academy, and is a Noble Street operated charter school and the Rowe Elementary School, a Northwestern University Settlement Association operated charter school. In addition, John Rowe serves as Chairman of New Schools Chicago, an organization that promotes and funds Charter Schools in the City of Chicago.

Rowe also serves as Chairman of the board of trustees of the Illinois Institute of Technology and as President of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. He is a Vice Chairman of the Field Museum and has previously served as Chairman of the Commercial Club of Chicago and its Civic Committee and as Chairman of the board of the Chicago History Museum. While CEO of CMP, Rowe served as the Chairman of the Fort Western Museum capital campaign. At NEES, Rowe served as President of the USS Constitution Museum, Chairman of the Mechanics Hall capital campaign, a member of the board of the Massachusetts Natural Conservancy and on the board of Trustees at Bryant University.

Under Rowe's leadership and strong belief that utilities can and must have a commitment to their communities, Exelon has become a major part of the social fabric of the communities it serves. Exelon companies granted over $270 million to non-profit organizations serving our communities over the last eleven years including a $70 million donation to fund the Exelon Foundation.

Since the program's inception in late 2005 Exelon employees have tracked over 318,000 hours of community service. Exelon employees serve on over 350 non-profit boards across the service area, making an impact at the community level.

In recognition of Rowe's dedication to the community he has received the Civic Federation of Chicago's Gage Award for Outstanding Civic Leadership, the Citizen of the Year award from the City Club of Chicago, and the Heart of Mercy Award from Misericordia. Under his leadership, Volunteer Match has recognized Exelon as the Corporate Volunteer Program of the Year. Exelon has also received the Ron Brown Award for Corporate Leadership and was named to Corporate Responsibility Magazine's Best Corporate Citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know John Rowe over my tenure in Congress and I can say that his impact on the energy industry will be long felt by both policy makers and Exelon's customers. I wish him and his family well in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I too come to the well to address a tragedy that happened this morning. Early this morning, an F 4 tornado hit the city of Harrisburg, Illinois, in my district. There was extensive damage, and six residents lost their lives.

Our thoughts and prayers are with those who lost family and friends, those who were injured, and those who lost their homes.

I plan to visit Harrisburg personally tomorrow and thank all those first responders who have been working tirelessly to care for the injured and to begin the long road back to clean up. The mutual aid provided by the surrounding communities is also very heartwarming.

I pledge to work with Mayor Eric Gregg and other local officials to rebuild the Harrisburg we all know and love.