Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor the achievement of the boys basketball team from my high school and hometown, my Collinsville Kahoks. On January 21st of this year, the Kahoks recorded their 2000th victory, becoming only the second team in Illinois and the third in the country to reach this great milestone.

This achievement is the result of the combined efforts of more than one hundred years of Collinsville players, coaches, and families. These are today's Collinsville Kahoks: Jaris Wellmaker, J'Vaughn Williams, Jacob Shaffer, Falando Wilkinson, Briley Kellison, Jared Blasingame, Chris Mathes, Devonta Crochrell, Daryn Foster, Jason Kusnerick, Travis Dunnette, Tanner Houck, Caleb Johnson, Sean Davis, Kelyn Conner, and Coaches Darin Lee and Eric Anderson.

These players and coaches have proven beyond a doubt that they can uphold our tradition of success, a tradition forged by past players such as Bob Bone, who set the all-time scoring record at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and also coached the Kahoks for twenty years, and other players such as Kevin Stallings, who went on to play at Purdue and now serves as head coach at Vanderbilt University.

But the one man most responsible for our tradition of excellence was the legendary coach of the Kahoks for thirty-three years, the late Vergil Fletcher. In his tenure, Coach Fletcher amassed 747 victories, leading the team to twenty conference championships and two State titles, one of which included an undefeated season. Coach Fletcher was an excellent coach and an exemplary role model, and we can only imagine how proud he would be today. May we all find the same measure of success.

And so once more I congratulate my Collinsville Kahoks, and I extend my gratitude to all those who helped make this achievement possible. I wish them continued good fortune in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the floor again this week to continue to talk about high-level nuclear waste and its location around the country.

This week really saddens me because, in the weeks past when I've identified the U.S. Senators from the appropriate States, usually I would have more in support of moving their high-level nuclear waste out of their State than who wants to vote to keep it in their State. As I go to Connecticut today and the States surrounding Connecticut, it is really amazing how many Senators have gone on record to say, No, it is okay; we will just keep this nuclear waste in our State for 15, 20, 25 more years.

With that, let's look at the options we have here.

The nuclear power plant that I'm addressing today is called Millstone. It is in Connecticut. I always like to compare it to where the high-level nuclear waste should be, which is underneath a mountain, in a desert in Nevada, at Yucca Mountain, where, in 1987, we passed into law and said Yucca Mountain will be the location for our high- level nuclear waste. It is the law of the land.

How have we done? How much nuclear waste is at Yucca Mountain, this mountain in the desert? We don't have any. We've already spent $15 billion. The waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground. The waste would be stored 1,000 feet above the water table. The waste would be 100 miles from the nearest body of water, which would be the Colorado River.

Well, let's compare it to Millstone in Connecticut. Right now, Millstone has 1,350 million tons of uranium spent nuclear fuel on site. The waste is stored in pools and in dry casts. The waste is 15 to 20 feet from the water table. It is on Niantic Bay, just off Long Island Sound. Here's a picture. Here's the nuclear power plant; here's the bay. It's right next to the water. And without moving forward on Yucca Mountain, this waste will continue to be stored there 15, 20, 25 more years.

So let's look at the Senators from the surrounding States that border this body of water. We have Senator Blumenthal--new. He said in a campaign interview that he opposed Senator Reid's fight to prevent Yucca Mountain, so we put him in the ``yes'' column. Senator Lieberman voted ``no'' in 2002, so we put him in the ``no'' column. Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey voted ``no'' on the Senate Appropriations Committee amendment to restore funding, so we put him in the ``no'' column. Senator Menendez from New Jersey has been a vocal critic, and so he's in the ``no'' column. Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator from New York, we have her as undecided. We're kind of waiting for her to take a position. Part of this debate is to at least get Senators on the record somehow to see where they will be on this position.

Senator Schumer--obviously fairly close to Connecticut and New York City--he had voted ``no'' in '02. Senator Jack Reed--actually a pretty good friend of mine--from Rhode Island voted ``no'' in 2002. Senator Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, we have as really ``undecided.'' Two ``undecided,'' a whole bunch of ``nays,'' and one ``yes.''

So how does that do for our totality of where Senators are at this time based upon the information we have? Well, we have 41 Senators who say we need to move high-level nuclear waste out of our State to a desert underneath a mountain. We have 14 that we really have no public record on. We'd like to see the Senate sometime take a vote and figure out where they might be. And we have 15 ``nays.''

Now, why is this important? The Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 said: Let's find a single repository. The Blue Ribbon Commission, which testified before my committee just last week, said: We need a long-term geological repository. As I quoted in a story yesterday, Brent Scowcroft, the cochair, said: We're not excluding Yucca Mountain, but we have so much nuclear waste now that we're going to have to find a second location.

So you can continue your fight on Yucca Mountain, but the Blue Ribbon Commission said we need a long-term geological storage centralized. We're just saying we already have one. If we're going to need a second one, then we better start that process of looking at a second one, but we ought to start filling up the first one.

We spent $15 billion. And why aren't we moving forward? Well, we have the majority leader of the Senate who says no. In fact, my colleague, Mr. Clyburn, was quoted in a paper as saying: As long as Harry Reid is alive, Yucca is dead.

Before my Pennsylvania friends get all freaked out, I appreciate you letting me come to the floor for 5 minutes to do what is now a weekly constitutional of mine and talk about high level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

What I have been doing, to set the stage, is going around the country highlighting locations where there's nuclear waste throughout this country, and just making the statement that it is in the national interest, and actually it's national Federal law that this waste be consolidated in a centralized storage facility. And so with that, I'll begin.

Today we're headed to the great State of Minnesota, and we're looking at a nuclear power plant called Prairie Island. Now, Prairie Island has 725 million tons of uranium, of spent fuel, onsite. Prairie Island has waste stored above the ground in pools and dry casks.

Prairie Island is in the Mississippi River floodplain, as you can see from the photo here. And Prairie Island is 50 miles from the Twin Cities.

Now, where should this waste be? Well, this waste should be where an 1982 energy policy, the Waste Policy Act, and then the amendments in 1987 said, by Federal law, it should be, which is underneath a mountain in a desert. And where is that mountain? The mountain's called Yucca Mountain.

Currently, after $15 billion spent researching and preparing the site, we have zero nuclear waste onsite. If we were storing the nuclear waste there, it would be 1,000 feet underground. It would be 1,000 feet above the water table, and it would be 100 miles from the nearest body of water, which would be the Colorado River.

Now, look at the difference between Yucca Mountain, 100 miles from the Colorado River, versus nuclear waste right next to the Mississippi River, actually in the Mississippi River floodplain.

So, why aren't we doing what the law has dictated? Well, we have the majority leader of the Senate who's been blocking funding and stopping any movement to do the final scientific study. In fact, the will of the House was spoken last year when we voted, I think, 297 votes, bipartisan votes, to complete the funding and the study.

So let's look at the Senators from the region of where this nuclear power plant is. And it's very curious: The two Senators from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken, they're silent. They're silent on nuclear waste in their own State. It's very curious. Not only nuclear waste, but nuclear waste on the river.

And then you go to North Dakota. Senator Conrad has voted ``no.'' Senator Hoeven supports it.

South Dakota, Senator Johnson voted ``no.'' This is all in the region.

Senator Thune supports. Senator Nelson votes in support of Yucca Mountain. Senator Johnson votes in support of Yucca Mountain.

Now, Minnesota has two sites, three reactors; two of them are right in this location. So, as I've been coming down to the floor, if you add these new Senators to the total tally, right now we have 40 Senators who have expressed support for moving high-level nuclear waste. We have 12 who are curiously silent on nuclear waste in their State or in their region, and we have 10 who have stated a position of ``no.''

It's in the best interest of our country, for the safety and security of this country, that we consolidate in a centralized location, underneath a mountain, in a desert, in the defined spot by law, which is Yucca Mountain.

And again, I want to thank my colleagues and friends from Pennsylvania for allowing me to intrude upon their hour.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of an American hero from Springfield, Illinois.

Lyman L. Hubbard, Sr. passed away on January 12, 2012 at the age of 85. One of the Tuskegee Airmen, Mr. Hubbard graduated as a command pilot from Tuskegee Army Air Base during World War II, and he dedicated his life to serving our great nation. Known as a strong leader, Mr. Hubbard flew in multiple combat tours in Southeast Asia and earned numerous U.S. and foreign military decorations. Upon retiring in 1970, Mr. Hubbard had flown nearly 7000 hours over a more than 20 year career in the Air Force.

Mr. Hubbard was also dedicated to the history of his community and his nation, as shown in 2005, when he saved from potential destruction one of the first African-American orphanages in the nation, the Lincoln Colored Home in Springfield.

I want to extend my condolences, and those of my colleagues in this House, to the family and friends of Lyman Hubbard, Sr., a patriot and true hero who will be missed by all who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership for allowing me this time to come to the floor. I'm going to do two short items, and then I'll address the weekly discussion on high-level nuclear waste and Yucca Mountain.

First, because of this day and our focus on the sacrifice of our colleague Gabby Giffords, let me update my colleagues on Senator Mark Kirk's progress, since he was a former colleague in this Chamber.

Senator Kirk's early prognosis is good, and his doctors are pleased with his progress at this point. As the Senator continues his recovery, his offices will remain open to constituents. I will just add very similarly, Congresswoman Giffords' staff continued to do the best job they could to serve the constituents of her congressional district. While she was unable to attend to many events, staff really did pick up the ball and carry it for her, as Senator Kirk's staff will continue to do for the State of Illinois.

During Mark's five terms in the House of Representatives and his first in the Senate, Senator Kirk has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. From traveling around the State holding town halls, to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to build consensus on key issues, to traveling overseas to advocate for strengthening America's security in relationships with foreign nations, Senator Kirk has demonstrated endless energy and dedication in public service. I have no doubt that he will return to the Senate with the same zeal and passion for his job that he had when he first entered this Chamber 12 years ago.

Tribute to Frank Cook

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It's an organization designed around legislators from all of our NATO countries. It's been in existence over 50 years. Since the legislative bodies in most chambers are the funding for the military, it's important that the legislative body talks about NATO's role in the past, in the present, and in the future.

During my time as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I became great friends with a member of the British Parliament who recently passed away, and I would like to pay tribute to him.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my British friend and colleague, Frank Cook, who passed away on January 12. Frank was a longtime colleague of mine in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. As you know, the Assembly brings together Members of Congress with their counterparts from Canada and Europe to talk about issues that concern us all. As a leading member of the Defense Security Committee, Frank Cook made vital contributions in debates in the Assembly from the mid- 1980s to 2010 on issues as wide ranging as Afghanistan, arms control with Russia, NATO's operation in Kosova, and its relations with Ukraine and other partners. He also served as vice president of the Assembly.

Frank embodied the spirit of the transatlantic alliance. He was never shy to express his opinions with a clear mind and a sharp wit. Even when Frank and I disagreed on policy, we remained friends and allies because we shared the values that underpin NATO: freedom, democracy, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law. We both believed that the NATO Alliance was critical to our collective security and defense, and that we as legislators in our own countries needed to do everything we could to make sure it was capable of meeting the threats we face in the 21st century.

I can recall many unforgettable experiences I've shared with Frank. I observed him lead a forceful debate on controversial issues and get all sides mad, like a debate he led on Nagorno-Karabakh in Quebec in 2006.

He and I took incoming artillery fire from the Taliban in Kandahar Airfield in 2007.

During the summer of 2010, we visited Greenland together. We visited a military encampment called Point North, which is north of the Arctic Circle. The dogs there pull sleds and provide early warning for polar bears. They appear quite scary, but Frank was the first to amble up and pet them.

Frank was a throwback to a time when characters could be listed--and by being listed, in parliamentary speak, that means being put on the party list for election--so Frank was a throwback to a time when characters could be listed and serve constituencies.

But perhaps my most memorable experience was when Frank would regularly treat us with the best performance of ``My Way'' since Old Blue Eyes himself--not a small feat for a Brit.

I learned a great deal from him, and he will be deeply missed by many of his friends at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and here in Congress.

Now to the business at hand, Mr. Speaker. Again, thank you for letting me come down once again to talk

about a very pressing and important issue in this country, one that I'm going to continue to use the bully pulpit for to help educate my colleagues, the public as a whole, even you, Mr. Speaker, on the need to address the issue of high-level nuclear waste in this country.

It's an issue that has been around since the development of the nuclear weapon system that we used to win World War II. Some of that waste is still there from that time, and it still sits in the same location of 40-50 years ago. It has hit the international stage with the experience that Japan has had in Fukushima Daiichi and the tsunami, not just the generating facilities themselves but what happened to the nuclear waste on-site, and an international nuclear disaster that still is making it difficult for our allies in Japan and really causes us to make sure that we look at our systems and understand what is our national policy on high-level nuclear waste and why we are not moving forward.

What I've done in my times coming to the floor is go around the country and highlight where nuclear waste sites are and compare it to where we, by Federal law, have stated our nuclear waste should be stored. This is all under the 1982 Energy Policy Act, and a site was located under that law in 1987. So let's go through the area for a brief review.

This is what happens when we no longer have pages on the House floor to help us.

The first site I visited personally was in Washington State and the site is called Hanford, which was a good place to start in this tour of where nuclear waste is because the vast majority of nuclear waste stored here is Department of Defense and Department of Energy waste that was used to develop our nuclear weapons systems during World War

Mr. Speaker, it's great to be back down on the floor, back to being in Washington, DC, to continue with what I spent most of my time last year doing, which was addressing the high-level nuclear waste issues in this country.

Today, we go to the great State of Tennessee, and identify a location where there is presently high-level nuclear waste stored and compare that to the site that was picked and that is in Federal law right now, which is the high-level nuclear waste depository scheduled to occur in Yucca Mountain.

First of all, this is Sequoyah in Tennessee, where there are over 1,094 MTU of spent nuclear fuel onsite. At Yucca Mountain, which is in the desert in Nevada, there is currently no nuclear waste onsite. At Sequoyah, the waste is stored above the ground in pools and dry casks. If we were to put it in Yucca Mountain, where it is supposed to go, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground--underneath, in essence, a mountain. At Sequoyah, the waste is 25 feet from the groundwater table. At Yucca Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table, and Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Sequoyah is 14 miles from the city of Chattanooga and 14 miles from Chickamauga Lake.

So why do I highlight these issues? Because of what happened in Japan with Fukushima Daiichi and the high-level nuclear waste.

A lot of the nuclear exposure was because pools had dried up. The nuclear waste heated up, and then you had almost a worldwide catastrophe right next to the ocean. If we were doing what was public policy in Federal law in collecting our high-level nuclear waste and taking it to a desert underneath a mountain, that would be a much more secure location than around our major municipalities, our streams, and our groundwater locations. But, no, because of this administration and some political promises made in the last election cycle, they have defunded and pulled off the table Yucca Mountain from consideration.

In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act made the Federal Government responsible for checking waste. Since that time, $9 billion and 20 years was spent studying for a suitable location. That study ended in Yucca Mountain.

In 1987 Congress named Yucca Mountain the sole candidate site for a permanent repository, and then in '94 DOE published scientific results demonstrating Yucca as capable of protecting public health and safety; in '98, the statutory deadline for DOE to commence disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

So we pay these nuclear utilities money to hold their own waste that we should be collecting based upon Federal law.

In 2002 we voted here, and the President and Congress approved Yucca as the site repository. DOE issued a license application in 2008, and then in 2009 President Obama announced plans to terminate Yucca Mountain after $15 billion spent in studying this site.

And I'll close with this: Would you rather have nuclear waste 14 miles from a major metropolitan area next to a lake or would you rather have high-level nuclear waste hundreds of miles from the major, largest city, 100 miles from a river, underneath a mountain, in the desert?

Public policy, good public policy demands that we move forward on Yucca Mountain.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that as soon as we get back here today, it is our first day back, that we get back on the focus of creating jobs in this country. And not jobs that government says we can create, but sustainable jobs that are created by the private sector; private capital assuming risk, hoping for a return to get economic growth. There's no better opportunity to do that than with the Keystone XL pipeline.

This is what we're talking about. Here's the oil up here in Edmonton. There's already a pipeline that goes down into my district actually, Patoka, a refinery in Wood River, and a new refinery also in the central eastern part of the State of Illinois.

The Keystone XL would be this blue line, which will bring more crude. Why do we need another pipeline, a bigger pipeline? Because there's so much crude oil up there in Canada, and they really don't have the ability to refine it, they really don't have the ability to market it. Let's get this crude to U.S. refineries so that we can then access it to our markets.

The great thing about the folks from the Midwest, as you had Mr. Terry, you had Mr. Latta, we already understand the benefits of the Keystone pipeline because we're already receiving the product to our refineries.

This is the oil sands. It's just oil that coats sand. And they boil it off, they recover the froth, they turn it into a liquid product called bitumen. And then it eventually gets turned into synthetic crude, and that's what we're talking about.

The third-largest oil reserves in the world are right here. How do you get it? A lot of times you do it through surface mining. Here's an example. Now the trucks are actually a little bit bigger in the mining operation, they're about seven stories tall--the tires are at least one story tall--built by a U.S. company called Caterpillar, located in Illinois. And that's where many--50 percent--of all these heavy dump trucks go, to mining operations around the world. One of their bigger markets right now is right in Canada.

Robinson Oil Refinery is the other refinery in Illinois. It's receiving the oil sands product, moving it into a product to meet to the market. So these are real jobs at a real time that will create real jobs--20,000 immediately, and as my colleagues have said, ancillary jobs.

You have pumping stations. You need to build the pumps. You've got to have the electricians that operate it. So this is something--private capital, return on investment, energy security. The President says he believes in the free flow of oil when he's trying to address Ahmadinejad in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. There's no better free flow of oil than permitting the Keystone XL pipeline.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, what does the Iranian nuclear threat to Keystone XL pipeline and the payroll unemployment insurance, doc fix, and jobs bill all have in common? Well, I'm going to use this 5 minutes to tie them together.

Yesterday on the floor, we addressed a concern of the Iranian nuclear threat. We did so with two pieces of legislation: H.R. 1905, the Iranian Threat Reduction Act; and H.R. 2105, the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act.

Why did we bring these bills to the floor? We brought these bills to the floor because of our concern of a nuclear Iran that has threatened its neighbors and one of our closest allies, Israel.

So what's the Iranian response? Well, I would turn your attention, Madam Speaker, to an article published yesterday, December 13, from FOXNews.com, with the title, ``Iranian Official Threatens Military Drill Sealing Off the Strait of Hormuz.''

I will read the first two paragraphs:

``A high-ranking Iranian official has said Iran's military will practice sealing off the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil transport channel, in a provocative move that illustrates Iran's capability of disrupting the world's oil supply.

``The announcement Monday by Parviz Sarvari sent oil prices up about $3 to $100 a barrel based on the speculation of a disruption during the military drills.''

Sarvari, a member of the Iranian Parliament's National Security Committee, is quoted as saying, ``Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz,'' in a statement reported by Reuters. ``If the

world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure.''

So the Keystone XL pipeline--which is the second part of this discussion--we heard on the floor yesterday, and it was acknowledged by both sides that, at a minimum, 20,000 jobs would be created, maybe up to 110,000 jobs. We also heard about organized labor being all in on the Keystone XL pipeline. I quoted a couple of members of organized labor. One would be Brent Bookers, director of the construction department at the Laborers' International Union of North America. He said, ``For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline; it is a lifeline.''

But what doesn't get told about Keystone XL pipeline enough is its importance for energy security.

Now, look. If Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz, why do you think we're in the gulf? Why is the Middle East so important? We all know why it is; because that's where all of the crude oil is.

So why would we not access the third largest oil supply to the Earth from our northern neighbor, Canada?

The map is right here. Right up here you have the great Canadian oil sands in Alberta. The red line is already a pipeline called the Keystone pipeline. What is being proposed is the Keystone XL pipeline, which would help bring Canadian crude to the oil refineries in Texas.

Now, I already have Keystone crude oil coming to my refinery in Wood River, to the terminal in Patoka, and to the Marathon refinery in Robinson, Illinois, and that crude oil, once refined through pipeline, goes to Cleveland, goes to Detroit, goes to Chicago and goes all over the country. There can be no more secure route for crude oil for this country than the Keystone Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Do we dare as a country still have to fret over threats by a member of the Iranian parliament because they want to shut down the Strait of Hormuz? We will have to continue to worry about this unless we continue to build and work with our Canadian allies on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

We know it's a jobs issue, we know it's an organized labor issue, and we know it's an energy security issue. And I just thought this story was timely with respect to our vote to hold Iran accountable. So we're on the record: We need energy security and we need the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to follow my friend and colleague from California who's retiring at the end of the Congress, which is another year. Even though we disagree probably too many times to count, no one questions her passion and her commitment, and her moral consciousness of doing the right thing. So give me a chance to publicly state that, and I look forward to serving with you in the final year together.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to read a letter from a businessman in southwestern Illinois who is closing up the business.

But even more timely than that was a Wall Street Journal editorial today. I mean, I was bringing the letter down anyway, so then I decided, looking at the Wall Street Journal editorial. And it's titled, ``Regulation For Dummies.'' The White House says its rulemaking isn't costly or unusual. The evidence shows otherwise.

First paragraph. ``The White House is on the political offensive, and one of its chief claims is that it isn't the over-regulator of business and Republican lore. This line has been picked up by an impressionable columnist, so it's a good time to consider the evidence in some detail.'' So they go through the analysis.

It ends up by saying the evidence is so overwhelming that the Obama regulatory surge is one reason the current economic recovery has been so lackluster by historical standards. Rather than nurture an economy trying to rebuild confidence after the financial heart attack, the administration pushed through its now famous blitz of liberal policies on health care, financial services, energy, housing, education, and student loans, telecom, labor relations, transportation, and probably some other industries we've forgotten. Anyone who thinks this has only minimal impact on business has never been in business.

Now, the column was dated December 14. This letter was dated December 7.

``You are the finest customer that we have served or you are one of the finest professionals that have served these customers.

``After 61 years, of which 58 were wonderful years in the construction business and having been associated with the greatest of people, it's with much sadness and disappointment that we have to announce that we will be closing December 31, 2011.

``You all know that we served the private sector. We've enjoyed working with industry, aviation, and all private businesses and entrepreneurs. We always felt that you were the pulse of the whole USA. It's sad to say that, through no fault of yours, that this pulse has slowed to a level that can no longer sustain the quality of service we have always felt obligated and more desired to provide.

``Our government is wonderful in that it provides for our common defense, our highway infrastructures and a few other worthy endeavors. However, they are, in fact an expense, an expense that we should enjoy funding. Though when they lose sight of the true fact that we in the private enterprise pay the bills and do not support an environment in which we can flourish with the fruits of our hard work, the funding will soon cease to exist.

``Government cannot produce revenue or prosperity, but they, like us, could enjoy both if they look at themselves as any other hired service organization that has to be worth the money they are getting paid. That's the way all of us have to operate and what gives us pride in what we do.

``God bless you. Thank you. And we pray that we all find American leadership to restore the pulse and pressure of the great private sector and the American Entrepreneur again. You are the Heartbeat of America. Again, God bless you.''

And so, these two written, one column, one letter, occurring simultaneously almost, highlighting the point that it is this regulatory regime pushed on by the executive branch that is, if not outright destroying jobs, it's making it very difficult for jobs to flourish. That's why in the bill last night we moved the Keystone XL pipeline, connected with the Boiler MACT. That's why we've done some other bills to, at least legislatively, put barriers into the excesses of the regulatory regime here from the executive branch.

Mr. Speaker, I think this was timely to come down to the floor and share this letter, and I thank you for the time.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of last week, I was able to take to the floor with some of my colleagues to talk about high-level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Part of that time, I wanted to make sure, as I have each week, to highlight certain locations around this country where high-level nuclear waste is stored. Because of time constraints, I wasn't able to do that, so I take to the floor this morning to highlight a nuclear power plant in Florida called Turkey Point.

And the way I do this, Mr. Speaker, is I have this poster in front of me, and I compare the location of high-level nuclear waste at Turkey Point to the defined-by-law location for a single repository in this country, Yucca Mountain.

So look at what we have here. At Yucca Mountain, we have currently no nuclear waste on site. At Turkey Point, there's is 1,074 metric tons of spent fuel on site. That's quite a lot of fuel. If we had waste stored at Yucca Mountain, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground-- Yucca Mountain is a mountain. At Turkey Point, waste is stored above ground in pools. Now why is that an important point to consider? The nuclear catastrophe in Japan, the Fukushima Daiichi plant, part of the major disaster was because of high-level nuclear waste stored in pools. The earthquake occurred and either the water that was there boiled out or there were cracks in the containment valve and it spilled out, and then the nuclear waste heated up, and hence you have a very dangerous situation still in Japan.

At Yucca Mountain, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet above the water table. But here, at Turkey Point, which is in Florida, the waste is on Biscayne Bay at sea level. So it is at sea level, not in a mountain in a desert.

What we've done also is look at if you are at Yucca Mountain how far are you away from really the largest body of water, which would be the Colorado River? Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Turkey Point and the nuclear waste stored there is 10 miles from the Everglades--10 miles from the Everglades.

So we passed--I wasn't a Member of this Chamber at this time--a Federal law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982. When we passed that law, we defined Yucca Mountain as the national repository--a single repository for not just nuclear waste from our nuclear power fleet, but also the nuclear waste from our Department of Energy locations from around the country.

Obviously, we are very close, but this administration, along with the NRC Commissioner, has delayed, postponed, and tried to stop any movement on Yucca Mountain. And that's why I take the floor. As the subcommittee chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, part of my jurisdiction is high-level nuclear waste, and that's why I come to the floor weekly to address this issue.

Now, this is very timely this week, as Chairman Jaczko and the NRC Commissioners are up here before our Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Chairman Jaczko, in an article dated September 7, said, ``I welcome debate, I welcome discussion, I welcome criticism.'' But a letter sent to the Chief of Staff of the White House, Mr. Bill Daley, by the other four Commissioners, bipartisan--two Democrats, two Republicans, three appointed by the President--says this about Chairman Jaczko: He's intimidated and bullied senior career staff to the degree that he has created a high level of fear and anxiety resulting in a chilled work environment. They also say he ordered staff to withhold or modify policy information and recommendations intended for transmission to the Commission. He has also ignored the will of the majority of the Commission, contrary to the statutory functions of the Commission. And he has attempted to intimidate the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

This is part of the problem of our not having a national policy to move high-level nuclear waste to a centralized location in a desert underneath a mountain, Yucca Mountain. We have Senators who have voted for that in this area. The two senators from Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama all support it.

United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC, October 13, 2011.

Hon. William L. Daley,

Chief of Staff, The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Chief of Staff Daley: As individual members of an

independent regulatory commission, we all took oaths to

execute this agency's nuclear regulatory mission and to

uphold the institution's values, including its Principles of

Good Regulation. Our obligation is not only to the agency and

its staff, but also to the American people. It is from that

foundation that we write to express our grave concerns

regarding the leadership and management practices exercised

by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory

Jaczko. We believe that his actions and behavior are causing

serious damage to this institution and are creating a chilled

work environment at the NRC. We are concerned that this will

adversely affect the NRC's essential mission to protect the

health, safety and security of the American people.

In a long series of very troubling actions taken by

Chairman Jaczko, he has undermined the ability of the

Commission to function as prescribed by law and decades of

successful practice. Since this current Commission was formed

some 18 months ago, after the President nominated and the

Senate confirmed the three newest members, we have observed

that Chairman Jaczko has:

Intimidated and bullied senior career staff to the degree

that he has created a high level of fear and anxiety

resulting in a chilled work environment;

Ordered staff to withhold or modify policy information and

recommendations intended for transmission to the Commission;

Attempted to intimidate the Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards, a legislatively-chartered independent group of

technical advisors, to prevent it from reviewing certain

aspects of NRC's analysis of the Fukushima accident;

lnored the will of the majority of the Commission; contrary

to the statutory functions of the Commission; and

Interacted with us, his fellow Commissioners, with such

intemperance and disrespect that the Commission no longer

functions as effectively as it should.

Recently, on October 5, 2011, Chairman Jaczko appeared as

an invited guest at a periodic meeting of the agency's

Executive Director for Operations and other senior career

executives. According to multiple reports, his comments

reflected contempt for the Commission itself and open disdain

for the Internal Commission Procedures, a document that

embodies governing principles from the NRC's organic

legislation--the Energy Reorganization of 1974 and the

Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980. These procedures guide the

conduct of the work of the Commission.

Over the last 18 months, we have shown Chairman Jaczko

considerable deference. Moreover, for the sake of the agency,

its staff, and public confidence, we have strived to avoid

public displays of disharmony. Unfortunately, our efforts

have been received only as encouragement for further

transgressions.

We are committed to conduct the work of this agency to the

best of our ability and despite the items highlighted above

and numerous other troubling actions taken by Chairman

Jaczko, we have carried out the work before us and will

continue to do so. However, Chairman Jaczko's behavior and

management practices have become increasingly problematic and

erratic. We believe his conduct as Chairman is inconsistent

with the NRC's organizational values and impairs the

effective execution of the agency's mission.

We provided Chairman Jaczko our concerns in the attached

memorandum.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki.

Commissioner William D. Magwood, IV.

Commissioner George Apostolakis.

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My friend from Ohio came down and he said, you know, what we need, what America needs, is jobs. And so that's the important aspect of bringing the Keystone XL pipeline into this debate. Don't listen to me; listen to my friends in organized labor.

Brent Bookers, director of the construction department of Laborers International Union of North America, said in testimony: ``For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline; it's a lifeline.''

David Barnett, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices said: ``The fact of the matter is Keystone XL would, upon completion, be the most environmentally safe pipeline anywhere in America.''

And then Jeffrey Soth of the International Union of Operating Engineers said: ``Without the Keystone XL pipeline, American crude oil from the Bakken Formation, the fastest-growing oil field in the United States, will continue to move out of the region in the most dangerous, most expensive way possible, by tanker truck.''

Folks, this is about jobs. We're fortunate to be able to place this in this bill, 20,000 immediate jobs, 110,000 additional jobs.

I stood outside a refinery and I asked people, Where do you think the crude oil comes in, and how does the refined product go out? In any refinery in this country it's done through pipelines. So the Keystone XL pipeline is a job creator. Organized labor is strongly behind this. It creates 20,000 immediate jobs.

And you know what, its the best form of stimulus because we're not borrowing money, and it's not a government project.

So I appreciate what my colleagues have done, including it in this bill. I thank them. My organized labor friends thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it's great to get a chance to come back down to the floor to visit with my colleagues and talk about an issue that I've been raising seven or eight weeks in a row. I'll have a little more extended time to go over what has transpired over the past 6 to 7 months, and that's that this country really needs to address this high-level nuclear waste problem in this country.

I'm glad to be joined with some of my colleagues who I'll yield to in a couple of minutes.

But just to start in a synopsis, based upon the parts of the country that we visited, for us to move past the logjam that's in the other body, we have to find 60 Senators who will vote to move forward what we know is Federal law. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 recognized and determined that Yucca Mountain would be the national repository for high-level nuclear waste.

I think a lot of folks would say, well, so if it's a law, why aren't we there? Well, the reason we're not there now is because the majority leader of the Senate has blocked it, along with the President of the United States.

This time is being spent to help educate the American public, Mr. Speaker, on where is the high level nuclear waste, what communities, what States are affected, and what Senators should be held somewhat accountable for the positions they take as far as high-level nuclear waste?

On the chart to my far left, throughout this last half a year, we need 60 votes. We've got at least 27 Senators who we know already support this based upon votes or public statements. We have eight that really have not had a chance to address this by a vote or haven't made a public statement on it yet. And we have seven ``nays'' or seven ``no'' votes.

With that, just because I appreciate my colleagues taking time out, I would like to first yield to my colleague from the State of Illinois, no disrespect to my colleague from the State of Georgia, to go into a discussion about one of the areas that we addressed, one of the first sites we talked about. I figured I'd better come forward and talk about my own State. If I'm going to talk about other States, I better talk about my own State, the State of Illinois.

In the State of Illinois, 50 percent of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. We're one of the biggest nuclear power States in the country. We picked a facility that's actually closed, which is Zion Power Plant.

With that, I'd yield to my colleague, Mr. Dold, to kind of talk about Zion, the State of Illinois, and its location.

The city of Las Vegas, which is the major metropolitan area, is a hundred miles from Yucca Mountain.

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

My colleague is correct. We've already spent about $14.5 billion dollars in the research, the development, the exploration, the testing. A lot of money, time, effort, and some of our greatest minds have been involved.

I don't really think you have to be one of the greatest minds. The point I always say is, common sense says in the desert underneath a mountain. Isn't that where you would want high-level nuclear waste versus right off the shore of Lake Michigan?

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

Yes. I think I briefly tried to show this article from The Salt Lake Tribune, dated December 8, which talks about some of the reactor parts that are going to go out to Utah.

What the article ends up saying is:

The site will not, however, take the Illinois plant's used fuel rods. The United States currently has no site to dispose of spent fuel from commercial reactors, a form of high-level nuclear waste.

So if we don't have a location, where is that high-level nuclear waste, the spent fuel, going to remain?

MR. DOLD. It's going to remain, seriously, right in the middle of a high-population area and hundreds of feet away from the jewel of our ecosystem--in the Great Lakes, in Lake Michigan. It's the wrong place for it to be. Common sense would say to move it out to a place, to a location, just like Yucca Mountain; $14 billion of research and dollars have gone into the site. Let's put it 1,000 feet below the ground, 1,000 feet above the water table, in an arid environment. It's absolutely perfect for it. It's something that we should move forward on. It's in the best interest and safety of the American public to do something along these lines.

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

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

I appreciate my colleague for coming down.

Now I'm going to turn to my colleague from Georgia, who also serves with me on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have jurisdiction over this. My subcommittee is the Environment and the Economy. I deal with a lot of these waste disposal issues, nuclear waste being one of those.

My colleague from Georgia has followed this issue as long as I have. The last time I came to the floor, I mentioned a couple facilities in Georgia, but the one that I have highlighted is the Savannah River. As I finish, I'll get this picture up to my colleague.

But the point we're trying to make today is that here you have Yucca Mountain, which is a mountain in a desert. Then you have nuclear waste all over this country. Look at this one. It's right next to the Savannah River. At Yucca Mountain, we have no nuclear waste on site. At the Savannah River, there are 6,300 canisters of waste on site. The waste would be stored, as my colleague Bob Dold said, 1,000 feet underground; whereas, at the Savannah River, it's stored right below the ground. At Yucca Mountain, it's 1,000 feet above the water table. At the Savannah River, it would be zero to 160 feet above the water table. The waste at Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. Well, you can see that it's adjacent to the Savannah River.

So I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey, for joining me; and I yield to him to enter into the colloquy.

Again, I appreciate your joining me today.

I want to quote from a Chicago Tribune editorial of March 19. I'll just read three short paragraphs:

``Here's why that is potentially a bigger problem than a meltdown: In the Japanese reactors, as in many U.S. reactors, the spent fuel is housed in large water-filled pools in the reactor building but outside the concrete-and-steel fortress that surrounds the reactor core.

``If the core melts down, any radiation released is likely to be partly bottled up by the containment vessel.

``Not so for the spent fuel pools, which often contain far more radioactive material than in the reactor. If the water that keeps those rods cool drains or boils away, the used fuel can catch fire. Result: A dangerous plume of extremely high radioactivity spewed into the air.

``Obvious question: Why do nuclear plants store spent fuel that way?

``Obvious answer in the U.S.: Yucca Mountain isn't open. In the 1980s, the

Federal Government launched plans to ship nuclear waste to a storage lair carved into the mountain in Nevada and let it slowly and harmlessly decay.''

So there are benefits to nuclear power. If you're a climate change person and if you don't want carbon dioxide and if you still want a lot of electricity for us to use in all of our new technology, you'll have to have a generator. Yet, in this case, it's the used fuel. It is properly stored, but it would be better stored in a single repository underneath a mountain in the desert for all of those reasons.

You're talking about four reactors right now in Georgia; two more coming online, that's six; Illinois has 11. There are over 104 across this whole country and, of course, we spent our time talking about the used nuclear fuel from the industry.

But when I started this debate about what do we do with high-level nuclear waste, I started with a DOE facility that goes back to World War II and the development of the nuclear bomb and the Fat Man bomb, which was built at Hanford, Washington. And all that waste, going all the way back to World War II, is in Hanford. And there are 53 million gallons of nuclear waste on site, buried right off the surface of the ground in tanks that are 750,000 to a million gallons each. Only about 40 of them--there is over 100. Only about 40 of them are double-lined. That means the rest are not. Some are leaking.

I yield to the gentleman.

Continuing to speak on this issue of just looking at it, to kind of get away from just the nuclear generating profit sector, to address our responsibility as stewards of a program that was developed to stop World War II and then eventually remedy these environments that had an environmental impact.

Yucca Mountain, the waste storage plan for Hanford--and I've just toured it this year. The plan to gather up, deliquify, reprocess, put it in these canisters is designed to go to one location. Do you know what that location is? That location is Yucca Mountain.

So our failure to move forward, or our failure--actually, the other Chamber's failure, the leader of the Senate's failure, the President of the United States' failure, just tells Washington State what? Guess what. You've got this high-level nuclear waste that's leaking, that's close to the Columbia River, and just deal with it. Just deal with it.

I find that unacceptable after, as my colleague from Illinois said, $14.5 billion we've spent to prepare this site at Yucca Mountain only to have it stopped for political purposes.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established Yucca Mountain as the national repository for high-level nuclear waste. And, again, for the educational purposes, Mr. Speaker, that is spent fuel. Sometimes it's spent nuclear waste from our Department of Defense, now controlled by the Department of Energy sites like Hanford.

Our argument is: Let's consolidate this waste safely, securely at one location so that, as my colleague from Georgia says, we can more safely, I think, effectively, I think, efficiently, I think, cost effectively manage, protect, and eventually try to remediate some of the damage that's been done over decades because of this high-level nuclear waste being located all over the country.

I yield to the gentleman.

Again, I thank my friend from Georgia for helping out on the Special Order and just addressing the issue of recycling. What do we do? Because those of us who follow the nuclear fuel cycle, most people want it closed. And how do you get it closed? You get it closed by getting as much energy out of the fuel rods as you can. You do that by reprocessing. But it would make sense that if there was someone who is going to attempt to do that, that the nuclear fuel would be close by.

There's probably some discussions about if we were going to have a reprocessing facility sometime in this country like France, where would you locate it? Where would it be situated? I mean, I am just a layman in this debate, but I think you would want it close by where the nuclear material is, the material that you want to use to reprocess, to create fuel.

I can't speak for the entire body. I do know that the House spoke on Yucca Mountain and bringing a finality to this--297 Members voted to ensure that we had the final dollars to do the final scientific study to move this process forward. And in that debate, it just showed that the will of the House was supportive and this is bipartisan. I mean, we don't have 297--or whatever the number is--Members who are just Republicans. We have 242. That means we brought a lot of our colleagues from the other side on this debate. Some of those really believe that the future is reprocessing and that we ought to be exploring that, and it's much better to have them located where you can recover that material.

If my colleague from Georgia wouldn't mind, we are joined by another colleague from Illinois. People wonder why we take up this cause. It's because we're a big nuclear State. It's about 50 percent of our electricity generation. I do a lot of coal. Coal is very important to me, but we are a nuclear power State which means we have a lot of sites, a lot of reactors, and we have a lot of nuclear waste.

So I yield to my colleague and thank him for coming down.

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

So you have constituents who have been paying into this fund?

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

Reclaiming my time, I would kind of close this circle, Mr. Speaker, reminding folks that the chairman of the NRC, Mr. Jaczko, used to work for now-majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid. And it's the majority leader in the Senate that is blocking the funding for the final scientific analysis, and it is the chairman of the NRC who used to work for the majority leader who is complicit in this plan to shut down an investment of this country of $14.5 billion to comply with Federal law that we passed in 1982.

Now, in 1982 I was serving my country as an Army lieutenant in West Germany before the Wall came down. That's a long time ago. This has been the policy of this country for decades. And to have one man, one majority leader of the Senate, put a halt to that,

that's why we're down here, because he has raised this to a political debate, not a scientific debate.

And because it's a political debate, what I'm attempting to do over a series of weeks is go around the country and just identify where is high-level nuclear waste stored, and would it be better for that waste to be stored underneath a mountain in a desert, the most investigated piece of property on the history of this Earth. There is no piece of property that has been more studied than Yucca Mountain anywhere on the face of this Earth.

So I know this is hard for some folks to see. We're doing a tally as we go around the country to look at, where are the votes? And we have 27 people, bipartisan, who have said this is where it should go from Washington State; of course, Illinois and Wisconsin, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Maine, Vermont, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. We have new Senators who have not had an opportunity to publicly either make a statement on it or cast a vote. They're in the middle. We have 27 ``yes,'' 8 unknown. We're going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Merkley. Feinstein was a ``no'' but Fukushima Daiichi and the two nuclear power plants that are on the Pacific Ocean in California and the high-level nuclear waste that's stored in ponds have her in a quandary based upon the representation of that State.

Tester of Montana, unknown; Lee of Utah; Brown of Massachusetts; Ayotte of New Hampshire; Shaheen of New Hampshire; Wicker of Mississippi.

Bona fide ``noes'': Reid of Nevada, Heller of Nevada, Cantwell of Washington, Boxer of California, Baucus of Montana, Kerry of Massachusetts, and Sanders of Vermont.

So it's a chance to use the bully pulpit and my position as chairman of the subcommittee to help educate not only the floor, my colleagues, the Speaker, those who are following us, that there's got to be a better way to store high-level nuclear waste than in pools next to Lake Michigan, next to the Savannah River, next to the Pacific Ocean. Surely, there's a better place. And we know there is.

Thirty years of study and research--Federal law says Yucca Mountain in the desert underneath a mountain is probably as good a place as you're going to find, at least in the United States.

I appreciate, again, my colleague for coming down for this hour of discussion on really what should be the national policy on high-level nuclear waste in this country.

I didn't get a chance to go through all the areas but I'm going to end with Yucca Mountain versus the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station between L.A. and San Diego. This is one of the ones I'm talking about. How much nuclear waste is in the desert underneath the mountain? None. How much is on the Pacific Ocean right on the coastline? There's the photo. That's 2,300 waste rods on site. The waste would be stored a thousand feet underground at Yucca. The waste is stored above the ground in pools right on the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean. The waste would be a thousand feet above the water table here. Of course, as you can see from the photo, the waste is right next to the Pacific Ocean. The waste at Yucca Mountain would be a hundred miles from the Colorado River. Again, you can see the waves breaking almost right up to the nuclear generating station between LA and San Diego.

I've gone to Massachusetts. I should have talked about Florida today. I've talked about Illinois. DOE locations like Washington State. There's a lot of nuclear waste defined differently all over this country. Let's do the correct public policy and get it at a single repository in the desert underneath a mountain.

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

It's always great to follow the highly respected minority whip, and he is highly respected.

I would say that there are a lot of pressing problems in this country. There is one I'll speak about today, and that's the high-level nuclear waste storage throughout this country. I would also say to my friend that part of the jobs bill has been passed. We passed the free trade agreement; we passed the veterans benefit portion; we passed the 3 percent withholding. So there has been movement in a bipartisan manner on some provisions in the bill.

So now, Mr. Speaker, let me segue to an issue for which I've come to the floor now six times, that of going throughout the country and highlighting where high-level nuclear waste is stored throughout this country.

Today, we'll travel to the State of Massachusetts, right on Cape Cod Bay where the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant sits. Again, it's right on Cape Cod Bay. At Pilgrim, there are over 2,918 spent-fuel assemblies on site. Yucca Mountain, which is the defined storage location, by law, in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, currently has no nuclear waste on site. I like to keep highlighting the real distinct differences based upon the years of talking about this issue and highlighting some of the arguments against Yucca, comparing it to where we have nuclear waste today.

So let's, again, continue to look at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. The waste is stored aboveground in pools, very similar to Fukushima- Diachi in Japan. At Yucca the waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground--above the ground in pools, 1,000 feet underground. I think Yucca is a better location. At Pilgrim the waste is 20 feet from the water table. At Yucca it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. I think that's a better, safer and more secure location. You can see the Pilgrim plant is right on Cape Cod Bay, right next to the water. Yucca Mountain is situated 100 miles from, really, the nearest body of water, which would be the Colorado River.

Now, for those who have been following my time in coming to the floor, this is my sixth time. I started at Hanford, a DOE facility in Washington State, and compared it to Yucca Mountain. I then went to Zion. I've got my friend from Chicago right here. Zion is right on Lake Michigan, which is a decommissioned nuclear power plant that still has waste stored on site; but Wisconsin has two nuclear power plants right on Lake Michigan.

Then I went to Savannah, Georgia, to talk about the nuclear waste there. Of course, it has the Savannah River; so it's right next to the Savannah River. Then I went out to California to look at San Onofre, the nuclear power plant

that's right on the Pacific Ocean. Then I went to Idaho and looked at the Idaho National Labs and the nuclear waste stored there. Today, we go to Massachusetts.

The point being, there is high-level nuclear waste stored all over this country, and a single repository at Yucca Mountain makes sense for all of the right reasons: it's over 100 miles from the largest city; it's in the desert; it would be underneath a mountain. There is no more safe, secure location.

Why are we not moving forward? Because this administration has decided not to spend the money needed to finish the final environmental study through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

So where are our Senators on this position? I've been bringing this down to the floor through all these States. We need 60 votes in the Senate to secure America's nuclear waste. Right now, through the States, based upon the States we've identified, there are 20 ``yeses.'' We've got about seven who are relatively new. We don't know their positions. Of course, we have established five who are ``noes.'' There are some in the New England States that I mentioned:

Susan Collins voted for Yucca Mountain in 2002. Olympia Snowe voted for it in 2002. Senator Kerry voted against it. Now, Pilgrim is in the State of Massachusetts. Based upon his statement, I guess Senator Kerry feels that Pilgrim is a more safe and secure location than Yucca Mountain. Scott Brown has no position yet. Senator Ayotte has no position. Senator Shaheen has no position. Of course, the Independent from Vermont has voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I come down to the floor once a week to talk about the high level of nuclear waste in this country and the fact that this country still doesn't have a single repository to store high- level nuclear waste.

Throughout this last year, I've talked about Hanford, Washington, which has multiple gallons of high-level nuclear waste. I then went to Zion nuclear power plant right off Lake Michigan to talk about its nuclear waste right next to the lake. A couple of weeks ago, I went to Savannah, Georgia, to talk about the Savannah River and the nuclear power plant that sits right next to the river. Then I went to the Pacific Ocean between Los Angeles and San Diego, San Onofre, where there's a nuclear power plant right on the Pacific Ocean.

Today I take the Nation to Idaho, where Idaho National Laboratory is located, comparing this site, as I do weekly, to the fine location under Federal law in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act which is Yucca Mountain.

Look at what we have at Idaho National Laboratory. At the national labs we have 5,090 canisters of nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain, none. At Idaho, the waste is stored above ground and in pools. At Yucca Mountain, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet from the surface of the ground. At Idaho, the waste would be 500 feet above the water table. At Yucca Mountain, the waste would be 1,000 feet above the water table. Idaho National Laboratory, 50 miles from Yellowstone Park; Yucca Mountain, the waste would be 100 miles from the Colorado River.

Now, why is it important to address these different locations of high-level nuclear waste across the country? Because there's 104 nuclear reactors in this country, not including all of the high-level nuclear waste that we have at our defense labs, our DOE labs, and the like.

So what this country needs to understand is there's nuclear waste all over the place and next to major population centers and next to major water reserves.

What I've also done in coming down here has been to highlight how do the Senators from the States that surround the Idaho nuclear lab--what are their positions? And their positions are as follows.

Senator Barrasso from Wyoming is a supporter of Yucca Mountain and has stated that the end result of this saga is a 5-mile long, 25-foot- wide hole in the Nevada desert. It was meant to store America's nuclear waste but instead, because of politics, it stands as a monument to bureaucratic waste of taxpayer dollars.

What does Senator Enzi say, who's also supported and voted for Yucca Mountain in 2002? ``In his campaign, President Obama promised change. He promised politics wouldn't interfere when sound science spoke. I'm disappointed that his Yucca Mountain policy ignores that campaign promise.''

Mike Crapo voted ``yes'' for Yucca Mountain, and he's disappointed in the administration.

And the new Senator from Idaho, Senator Risch, says:

``The President's decision to kill the Nation's congressionally directed repository for high-level nuclear waste as a favor to one State is politics at its worst. The Administration's decision to knowingly undermine their commitments to Idaho and 33 other States with no clear alternative cannot stand. This has become a hallmark of this administration, first with the Guantanamo prison site and now Yucca Mountain--to jump without knowing where they are going to land.''

The other thing I've been doing has just been highlighting, as I've been taking the country through the high-level nuclear waste areas around this country: Where are the Senators based upon their past votes or current statements?

Right now, we have 17 Senators in support; we have three in opposition; and we have four who really have no defined positions as of yet. Senator Feinstein, of course, has spoken in opposition to Yucca Mountain; but with Fukushima Daiichi and with the fact that she has nuclear power plants on the shore of the Pacific Ocean, I think she is reevaluating that position.

We need 60 votes in the Senate to move forward and to finish the science on Yucca Mountain so that, by Federal law, Yucca Mountain becomes the single repository for high-level nuclear waste in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, in today's Reuters report, ``Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday urged claimants to the South China Sea not to resort to intimidation to push their cause in the potentially oil-rich waters, an indirect reference to China ahead of a regional leaders' summit.''

Why are we concerned about crude oil in dangerous places of the world? It is because we do not have North American energy security, hence the whole Keystone XL pipeline debate.

And we have good news on that front. Two days ago, from Lincoln, Nebraska, another Reuters article says, ``Nebraska and TransCanada agreed on Monday to find a new route for the stalled Keystone XL pipeline that would steer clear of environmentally sensitive lands in the State.''

Why is that important? Energy security, expediting the permitting process, 20,000 new jobs immediately, private capital, Caterpillar mining trucks, Marathon Oil refinery.

If you live in the Midwest States of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, this oil goes directly to refineries and that, which decreases our reliance on imported crude oil and makes us safe and secure and it creates jobs.

Keystone XL is a no-brainer. This administration needs to get off the dime and move this process.