Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for and

emphasize the importance of blood donation and independent blood centers in America.

Blood transfusions help save millions of lives each year. However, blood cannot be manufactured, so our entire national supply depends on the selfless generosity of blood donors. Because donated blood is perishable, it has a limited shelf life. It must be continually replenished.

Last year, when a shooter attacked the Republican baseball team and hit my friend and roommate, Majority Whip Steve Scalise, the donors who visited their local blood center in the days prior to the shooting made a crucial difference in saving his life. Volunteer blood donors ensure that patients suffering due to natural disasters, accidents, diseases, or acts of violence always will have access to lifesaving blood.

This week, in honor of World Blood Donor Day, I want to thank our Nation's blood donors, as well as encourage others to join the 7 million Americans who choose to donate blood each year. I also encourage my colleagues to visit their local blood centers to learn more about the continuous need for blood donation and to support their lifesaving work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize John Goldsmith a native of Greenville, Illinois.

For well over 25 years, John has logged countless hours of dedicated service to his community. One of John's many projects was the establishment of the Demoulin Museum. For John's efforts in opening this museum, he was recently awarded the Daughters of the American Revolution Historic Preservation Medal.

Today the Demoulin Brothers & Company is the leading maker in marching band uniforms, but they got their start making fraternal lodge initiation regalia. John and his late mother Norma amassed and preserved a collection of historic artifacts from the company that was founded in 1892.

John has turned what began as a hobby with his mother into a museum that has drawn visitors from all 50 states and even internationally to his hometown of Greenville. Recently, John has preserved a church building dating to the 1890's to serve as the permanent home of the Demoulin Museum.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to send my most sincere congratulations to John in receiving the Daughters of the American Revolution Historic Preservation Medal.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me be clear what this amendment does.

This is 1,000 pages of the safety and evaluation report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--5 volumes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is our independent safety agency on all things nuclear.

What my colleague from Nevada's amendment does is strip the money for what they keep telling me they want. They want to prove the science. They want to say it is not safe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it is safe for a million years.

Now, if my colleagues from Nevada want to debate the science, then they can do that, per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, through the licensing project. But, no, they don't want to put their science up against our independent nuclear safety agency. They want to adjudicate this in the court of public opinion and deprive the money to have that final science debate.

So this amendment is really an anti-science amendment to not debate the NRC's finding, because we know that in their conclusion they say storing nuclear waste in a long-term geological repository--and this is the world consensus--in a deep geological repository is what the world's scientists say is the safest way to store spent nuclear fuel and defense waste.

That is not just the United States. That is France. That is Norway. That is Great Britain. That is many of our allies and friends and their scientists. Again, 1,000 pages, 5 volumes, public record.

This amendment takes that money away so we don't have a debate on the science. It is either in the desert underneath a mountain, 1,000 feet above the ground table, 1,000 feet below the top of the mountain, or it is on the Pacific Ocean. Those are the choices that we had debated in

Mr. Chairman, I am glad this amendment came, because our job now is to educate, not only the State of Nevada, but it is also to educate our colleagues from across the country that the science debate, the final decision needs to be through the licensing.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, our independent Federal nuclear safety agency, says it will be safe for a million years. Nevada says: Not so. Let's have the debate. Let's not strip the money.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues from Nevada for allowing us to have this debate once again.

Two weeks ago, we had this debate on the floor of the House. We had a pretty good vote, a bipartisan vote: 340 of our colleagues supported continuing to move forward; 72 disagreed with that position.

Part of this debate allows me to just lay out the true facts, and the facts are that this body and this Nation decided 30-plus years ago to address a national

problem with a national solution. So we have been moving forward as a Nation for 30 years--30 years, $15 billion, the most studied piece of ground on the planet. Fortunately, it is in the State of Nevada, and Nevada can claim that they have the safest location for a geological repository.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in exhaustive research--and I was wrong. It wasn't 1,000 pages; it is 1,928 pages. This is one of five volumes.

And, yes, the previous amendment was to say: Let's don't adjudicate the difference. My colleagues from Nevada keep saying it is not safe. I trust our independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission that says it is safe for a million years. The only way you resolve this is to follow the law and go through adjudication of the complaints.

Now, the State of Nevada doesn't want to go through the adjudication because I believe that, once the science is debated, the decision will be in line with the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission and their exhaustive research.

Now, let's talk about this current amendment. What this current amendment does is just says: Let's disregard the will of 49 States and our territories and 30 years of law to respond to the State of Nevada's opposition, not even scientifically based.

So what does that mean? What it means is that spent nuclear fuel in a place in California--this is San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. It is between Las Vegas and San Diego. It is right on the Pacific Ocean. What it means is that it stays right there.

What it means for my colleague Dan Newhouse from Washington State is that the defense liability of Hanford, right on the Columbia River, stays right there.

What it means for my friends in Chicago is that the Zion Nuclear Power Generating Station, right on Lake Michigan, stays right there.

What about the Savannah River Site? Well, it stays right next to Savannah River versus 90 miles away in the desert, underneath a mountain, on Federal property.

So when the local concern is addressed about the local issue, the local consensus is really the Department of the Interior, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. That Federal land is larger than the State of Connecticut. That is the local concern that we are dealing with and we are addressing here.

This is all of the operating commercial nuclear power plants. That is why there are 31 States and 121 locations. And that is why this debate is important. Because more and more, as we are able to lay out the facts, the consensus by the national media is that it is time to move forward and finish the project, whether that is The Washington Post, The San Diego Union-Tribune, the Aiken Standard, the Los Angeles Times, or the Chicago Tribune.

So I say to my colleagues, I understand the ``not in my backyard,'' but there is more nuclear spent fuel in Chicago, Illinois, in Chicagoland--in Chicagoland, not 90 miles away. And Chicago has 55 million visitors, not 33 million--more than Las Vegas. It is not going to hurt their tourism. Actually, it is going to help diversify the economy.

I understand the argument and debate. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for letting me address this again in this Chamber so that I can fully not only educate our colleagues but move the Nation forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Bryleigh Buchanan's athletic achievement. Bryleigh is a 2018 graduate of Harrisburg High School in the 15th District of Illinois. She earned the third-place medal in the high jump at the Illinois Class 2A Girls Track and Field State Final Meet for the second year in a row.

In her final high school track meet, Bryleigh just ticked the bar on what would have been a gold-medal winning jump of 5 feet, 7 inches and later settled for the bronze after reaching 5-6. I offer my congratulations to Bryleigh Buchanan on her outstanding athletic achievements and wish her well in her future goals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the upcoming bicentennial celebration for Albion, Illinois. George Flower of Hertfordshire, England, founded Albion (which is the poetic name for England) in April 1818, just two miles east of where Morris Birkbeck, another affluent Englishman, founded Wanborough. The two villages and the area around them became known as the ``English Settlement.''

While Wanborough eventually faded away with the accidental drowning death of Birkbeck in 1825, Albion survived to play an important role in Illinois' history. Albion was the birth place of Illinois Governor Louis Lincoln Emmerson. He was born in the house which is now the Edwards County Historical Society Museum at 212 West Main Street. George Flower's brother-in-law, William Pickering, was elected to the Illinois State House of Representatives in 1842 and served for ten years. He developed a close relationship with Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln was elected President, he gave Pickering his choice of either being Minister to England or Governor of the Washington Territory. Pickering chose to be appointed Governor of the Washington Territory.

The City of Albion is planning a three day celebration beginning on Friday, October 12, 2018, to commemorate their bicentennial. They will have a giant cake, several kettles of chowder, a quilt exhibition, music, and much more. On Sunday they plan on having a community-wide ecumenical worship service at the stage for all to attend.

I offer my congratulations to the city of Albion on their bicentennial anniversary, and I wish them many more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the St. Joseph-Ogden High School girls track and field team, who are the 2018 Illinois High School Association Class 1A state champions.

St. Joseph-Ogden won the title with a score of 43, easily outpacing the second place finisher by seven points. St. Joseph-Ogden benefited from having two event winners, Atleigh Hamilton, who won the long jump event with a mark of 18 feet two inches and the 4x200 Meter Relay team, composed of Abbey Mizer, Maclayne Taylor, Hailey Birt, and Atleigh Hamilton, who won with a time of 1:43.89. Also making important contributions to the overall victory were the 4x100 Meter Relay team of Abbey Mizer, Maclayne Taylor, Hailey Birt, and Atleigh Hamilton with a second place finish; the 4x400 Meter Relay team of Maclayne Taylor, Rylee Sjuts, Zea Maroon, and Atleigh Hamilton, which also finished second; and the 4x800 Meter Relay team of Rylee Sjuts, Zea Maroon, Hannah Rajlich, and Sam Mabry, which took third place.

Mr. Speaker, today it is an honor for me to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the St. Joseph-Ogden High School girls track and field team in winning the 2018 championship, and I wish the team and their coach, Kelly Steffen, all the best in the future.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3053.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I am going to have a lot of people wanting to come to the floor, so I will abbreviate my opening remarks and just address a few questions that are going to be raised.

First, I just want to highlight the fact that you are going to hear a lot about local, consensus-based decisionmaking, and then you are also going to hear about closeness of proximity. This chart kind of highlights what we are talking about.

The red is Federal Government land. The Federal Government land is larger than 31 countries on the Earth. You have three different sections. You have the national test and training range. You have the national security site. You have also some Fish and Wildlife/Interior land, bigger than many of our States in our Union. So, to my colleagues, I want to make sure they have in perspective the size of the area that we are talking about: bigger than the State of Connecticut and areas that people are going to talk about.

That is one question that will be addressed. Another question will be the fear of tourism, because Las Vegas gets 42 million tourists a year, and they seem to be concerned that this might affect that industry. And then it dawned on me that the city of Chicago gets 55 million tourists a year--55 million--and they have over 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in Chicagoland.

So I want to make sure that my friends in Nevada understand that that should not be a terrible concern when Chicago seems to be doing well with tourism on that issue.

Also, there will be a debate about transportation. I just want to call attention, Mr. Chairman, through you to my colleagues that we operate a nuclear Navy. That nuclear Navy has to have the power systems refueled. That means new nuclear fuel goes there. That means spent nuclear fuel goes off the nuclear Navy ships. That is on the ocean. That is either on the Atlantic Ocean or on the Pacific Ocean. This spent fuel goes to Idaho, which means that we transport, safely, spent nuclear fuel, and we have done it for decades.

Those are the three main contentions you will hear with this bill. I am going to allow my colleagues to talk about all the great benefits of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, October 6, 2017.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bishop: On June 28, 2017, the Committee on

Energy and Commerce ordered favorably reported H.R. 3053, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017. This bill was

additionally referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.

I ask that the Committee on Natural Resources not insist on

its referral of the bill so that H.R. 3053 may be scheduled

for consideration by the Majority Leader. This concession in

no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of

the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee

on Natural Resources represented on the conference committee.

Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and your

response in the bill report and in the Congressional Record.

Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the

extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over

matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further

opportunities to work with you this Congress.

Sincerely,

Greg Walden,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), who is on the committee, and has been doing great work to deal with his constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a subcommittee chair of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters), who has been very helpful in this project.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not closing yet. We are waiting for the majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a couple of issues, of course, that have been raised. In my brief opening statement I reminded the folks-- and I see my colleague from Chicagoland on the floor--Chicago gets 55 million visitors a year. In Chicagoland there are 10,000 metric tons. That is in the community, that is where there are condos, and it is right there.

This proposed long-term repository is 90 miles away from Las Vegas. It is a mountain in a desert. If it gets approved, final adjudication.

And what has held up the final adjudication? Politics on the appropriation matter, which I think this bill is going to help solve, because once we get a good vote--my colleagues, I don't think we voted on an authorization bill, on this issue on an authorization bill, since 2002.

That is when the State of Nevada objected, per the law. They were allowed to do that. We had a chance, then, to override that veto. Because, as Mark Sanford said, this is a national problem that demands a national solution.

So the law laid out an opportunity to hear the complaints from the State of Nevada and say ``yes'' or ``no.'' They said ``no.''

The law laid out the opportunity for the national legislative body and the President of the United States to decide to accept or reject that.

I think this Chamber vote was about 350 to reject the State of Nevada's opposition. The Senate rejected it on a voice vote.

So we have been through this numerous times. We know where the majority of Representatives are, and we know where the majority of Senators will be. We have just got to move. We have got to address this national problem with a national solution.

Another issue that was just touched on by Chairman Walden, he spent a lot of time on it, is spent nuclear fuel. This is ratepayers also helping pay for our defense waste obligations. The nuclear weapons and winning the Cold War created stockpiles of nuclear waste, toxic sludge, in areas in four States primarily. Primarily, Washington State, also South Carolina. Ratepayers are going to help safely dispose of that.

So when you take the national defense problem and the spent nuclear fuel problem, we are moving forward in that direction.

Nevadans are not uniformly opposed to the repository. In fact, nine of the surrounding counties have passed resolutions to move forward, at least with the adjudication.

And as my colleagues from Nevada know, I have been to that State quite a few times, and we talked to many, many people on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to also thank the staff on both sides for their work. This is the way legislation is supposed to move. You have hearings. In Energy and Commerce, we really have four: a subcommittee hearing markup, subcommittee markup, full committee markup, then we go through the process. So our staff has done a tremendous job.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Pallone and Ranking Member Tonko for their friendship and their actually good negotiating skills. As they have told me many times, they have changed this bill through their diligence, and that has got us here to a better product.

I will end up on three quick points. We have raised them before.

We can transport this safely. We have done it for decades.

Every day, taxpayers are paying from all 50 States into the Judgment Fund because of our failure to meet our legal obligations. I think it is almost $800 million a year that we pay because we are breaking the law.

Independent scientific analysis of the Yucca Mountain repository found the site can safely dispose of nuclear waste for 1 million years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time opposition, but I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating). I think this is a very needed amendment.

I would say one of the most frustrating things about this process, and my colleagues on the other side know, is that we passed this bill in June of last year. And then we had the funding, and the money, and the debate, and the trust fund, and appropriators and budgeters.

Anything we can do to clear out and get some clear guidance on the money, we may have to then move to another piece of legislation to really clarify. Our bill does that for new revenue coming in, so I think it is a great addition, and I appreciate him coming down.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to end by saying I know there are some rumblings out there about what is this litigation fund being paid for and who is paying for it?

The United States Government is being sued. We have to make these payments because we are not abiding by the law. It is not the private industry.

There are rumblings out there about: Oh, we are relieving the nuclear industry of reliability. That is absolutely false. We are going to protect U.S. taxpayers from the liability that we are paying because the Federal Government is not complying with the law.

And I want to make that straight. That is accountability, that is transparency. That is what my colleague Mr. Keating is doing.

And with that, I support his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois-- one of the Chicagolanders that I talk about--for bringing this amendment. I use his district--and I have used it for years--to talk about the challenges that we face if we do nothing.

This authorization bill is designed to start doing something, and, actually, it is designed to help us comply with the law that is already written.

Zion is the perfect example of the need to move spent nuclear fuel to an interim site and then a final geological repository, thus, freeing up, obviously, great lakefront opportunities on the Great Lakes for redevelopment that would help this community that suffered because of the closure.

I am glad the gentleman is here. I appreciate the amendment. I am going back to what Mark Sanford said: This is a national problem. We need a national solution. That is what we are trying to do now in a bipartisan manner. Good job. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I again thank my colleague. I don't know if he was in the Chamber when I mentioned that Chicagoland has 55 million visitors and 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. We would like to solve that problem. The gentleman's amendment helps the communities as we transition. It is additive to the overall bill. I am happy to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, the State of Nevada has benefited from the nuclear age. It helped us win World War II. Also, Nevada pays for our inability to comply with the law because, nationally, we pay out of the Judgment Fund. So the taxpayers of the State of Nevada are paying, through Federal tax liabilities, for us not complying with the law. So I just want to make that straight.

There are two main problems with my colleague's amendment. One is-- and it is just the language--it is a striking bill, which says that, all of this debate of interim storage that we are having, her amendment strikes that. All of the discussion about how we are trying to protect the ratepayers--especially in the future--her amendment strikes that.

Her amendment strikes the final regulatory review of the Yucca Mountain site. The NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in their safety evaluation report that Yucca Mountain would be safe for 1 million years.

Current law allows the State of Nevada to challenge that, but my colleague's amendment strikes that. And what we have done in this legislation is we have said: We understand the concerns of the State of Nevada. Current law says: Because you vetoed it, you get no benefits.

In this bill, we said: That is not fair. We are going to allow the State of Nevada to receive the benefits that they request in moving forward. Your amendment strikes that, so your amendment strikes the opportunity for the State of Nevada to get any benefits once we move forward.

The other part of the problem with this amendment is the terminology is very vague as to local government entities. And we think that is probably intentional. It is intentional so that you can never get a number of local entities to ever decide. We kind of looked at, based upon the way the language is written, who would be considered. Well, a local entity, a community in the State of Utah, Minersville, population 887, 300 miles from the site, could be able to veto this national solution to a national problem.

Now, that means--and I can't wait to visit Minersville someday--that they are going to have more power than the Federal Government and this Chamber. They are going to have the veto authority over the State of New Jersey or the State of Illinois or the State of--I don't know how many States came here to debate on this bill. Quite a few.

So a couple problems: the first problem is, it is a strike amendment, which means everything that you have done, all those adjustments that I have worked in a bipartisan manner, throw them out; and that you cannot get to understand the universe of local communities that would have a veto over this national solution to a national problem.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad my friend from Oregon mentioned the blue ribbon commission. The blue ribbon commission was told: Do not consider Yucca Mountain. So come on. Really? Pull out the blue ribbon commission and say ``this is the truth'' when they were told: Consider everything else, but you can't consider the law of the land. Preposterous.

To my colleague, Chairman Walden--actually in Oregon--this is Hanford. These are the tanks next to the Columbia River, which goes next to Oregon. And you are saying it has no defense-related provisions for this bill? Come on now. Let's move forward.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee for bringing this bill to the floor tomorrow. I appreciate the due diligence they did on scrutinizing those amendments that could be additive to it and also the one from my colleague, Representative Titus, so we can really put aside this debate on a consensus-based issue because we need to help educate the American people. We need to help educate our colleagues.

In the State of Nevada, 90 percent of all the land is owned by the Federal Government, and a big portion of that is at this location.

When people say ``not in my backyard,'' we think they are talking about the Rayburn Building. Not in my backyard, in this debate, we are talking about Baltimore. But in between here and Baltimore, there is desert; and in the 60-mile radius is a fenced-in enclosure where we used to set off atomic weapons and groundbursts. So there is a place in this land that is called Yucca Flats, and some of us have seen that. Yucca Flats is where we did atomic testing.

We need to make sure people understand this debate. Big area of land, Federal Government, really, the local consensus is us. It is the Federal Government. We are the landowners of this property.

This is a tough decision. No one wants nuclear waste or defense waste. I am glad my colleague, Mr. Newhouse, is managing this bill, because I have been out to his location. In Hanford, we have a lot of defense waste there.

So what are we trying to do? We will flesh this out more, obviously, tomorrow, but this issue is a multigeneration debate which we in this Chamber get a chance to move forward again after a long delay.

This goes back to World War II. This goes back to the atomic age. This goes back to winning the Cold War. This goes back to our weapons programs. When that occurred, they said: Now we have got this technology; let's use it for civil electric generation.

The government wanted to encourage that because we wanted to have nuclear scientists and we wanted to have energy generation, but we also wanted to have the experience and the expertise of nuclear scientists and engineers who could move back and forth from the private sector to the defense sector for our Nation's security, and, hence, we agreed.

In 1982, we had to address the spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power sites and we had to address the defense waste that is predominantly in Congressman Newhouse's district, a lot of it in South Carolina. There is a little bit in New York. We have some left in Colorado. That is just the defense waste, not including the 39 States and 121 locations that have nuclear fuel--a national issue, a national concern, and we are moving forward to a national solution.

In 1982, under the Reagan administration, they said: Well, how are we going to pay for this? So they decided to charge ratepayers who are using electricity that has been generated by nuclear power a fee, a fee-based system to help the industry find a location to store their spent fuel and for us to clean up the defense sites--pretty good proposal.

Years later, they are trying to find the location. They do three analyses. Yucca Mountain was on the top three of these three. Then, as I will mention tomorrow, Senator Johnson and a guy named John Dingell said: Yucca Mountain, we need to move forward.

So that was in 1987. Then we started generating the movement to get to a point where, under the law, the State of Nevada could say, ``We reject the proposal,'' which they did. The law then said the Federal Government could veto their objection, which we did.

Mr. Speaker, we had an administration that put a pause on that for about 8 years, and now we are ready to move forward again. We have got an administration that wants to fund the licensing process.

I see my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui) is on the floor, and she has worked on interim; what do we do with the waste before we put it in the final repository?

There are what I call dead plants--probably not the proper word--we have plants that are no longer generating electricity, but they have waste on site.

Can't we consolidate those for the benefit of the Nation and get them away from some of our more pristine areas?

The answer is ``yes.'' That is what we tried to with the bill. We are going to accept a couple amendments that have been brought forward by some Democrat colleagues on, I think, financing, or evaluation of the money and what do we do to the cities and how do we help them redevelop. And I will encourage my colleagues to support those when we have that debate.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is not an easy process in the Rules Committee. This is a step to get it to the floor. I appreciate the kindness that was shown to me yesterday, and I look forward to joining with you all tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Saline County Homemakers Education Association.

Since they first organized in 1918, members of the Saline County Homemakers have been devoted to improving the lives of women, children, families, and communities within their region. Through emphasizing the importance of the human and spiritual values of life, they have also sought to promote the development of positive role models and strong community leaders. Their programs and meetings have continued to provide Saline County residents with opportunities for friendship, personal growth, and community service.

The Saline County Homemakers Education Association will be sharing their history with the community in a ceremony on Saturday, April 28 at the McKinley Baptist Church Education building in Harrisburg, Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to send my congratulations to Saline County Homemakers Education Association for their continued success and dedication to their mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Congressional Prayer Breakfast.

Prior to its origination, many residents of Illinois had attended what was then called the St. Louis Mayor's Prayer Breakfast. I was invited myself to attend by Gary Tedrick, a local businessman who was involved with the sponsoring organization--CBMC.

We then discussed hosting an Illinois version to be called the Congressional Prayer Breakfast. Upon conferring with Congressman Jerry Costello (D, Belleville), we agreed this would be a good thing to do. It would remind us of our common faith and that there is more that unites us than divides us. We ended up co-hosting the event for 14 years.

Gary led the formation of the breakfast along with the help of David Stevenson, Mark Repking, Ted Prehn, and Stan Bower from the St. Louis chapter of CBMC, and Gary continues to lead it with the help of dozens of volunteers. People such as Bob Plummer and Scott Adams are original sponsors from the very beginning.

We have heard from a wide range of speakers over the years, who tell their stories of the trials of life and faith, but all of them have had the same common belief in Jesus Christ.

I want to thank former Congressmen Jerry Costello and Bill Enyart for co-hosting, as well as my current co-hosts, Congressmen Rodney Davis and Mike Bost. I also want to thank Steve Jankowski, who has served as our emcee for all 20 years.

I want to thank the current steering committee members: Scott Adams, Mike Baese, George Weber, Dick Bold, Julie Lading, Bob Plummer, Larry Absheer, Gary Tedrick, Tony Kalinowski, David Stevenson, Tracy Bodenbach, Eric McRoy, and David Wiegand. In addition, I want to thank Bott Radio for broadcasting the breakfast for several years now.

I want to thank R.P. Lumber in Edwardsville, Answer Midwest in Alton, and Larry's Hairy Business in Fairview Heights for hosting weekly discussion groups.

My involvement in reaching the 20 year milestone for the Congressional Prayer Breakfast has been limited, and it would not have happened without the dedication of Gary and his team and the hundreds of attendees each year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize Kaskaskia College as part of April's national Community College Month.

Kaskaskia College provides high quality and affordable services to over 7,000 students every year. Students can receive distinguished Associate Degrees and skilled labor training to propel themselves forward in higher education and the work force.

Kaskaskia College has doubled down on their mission to provide the most competitive education and technical training. KC has expanded access to their services through online programs, dual-credit courses, and six educational centers that complement their main campus. The services KC provides have become vital to the economic and educational growth in the communities it serves.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to send my congratulations to Kaskaskia College's faculty, staff, and Board of Trustees for their continued success and dedication to their mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Highland High School varsity dance team, who are the 2018 Illinois High School Association Competitive Dance Class 1A champions.

Highland won the title with a score of 95.08, making this the school's third dance team championship in a row. Highland ended the preliminary round with a three-point advantage and then secured the win by posting the highest team score of Head Coach Emily Wellen's tenure. The victory was especially exciting to seniors Olivia Genteman, Abigail Rogier, Kayla Davis and Katie Etter, who now claim the title of three- peat champions.

I would like to congratulate the entire Highland dance team on their victory: Kayla Davis, Bree Etherton, Katie Etter, Alexis Finely, Paige Foster, Olivia Genteman, Kylie McFarland, Abbey Mortland, Claire Pabst, Abigail Rogier, Tatum Stock and Brooke Wilson, as well as Coach Wellen, on a superb end to a great season.

Mr. Speaker, today it is an honor for me to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the Highland High School varsity dance team in winning the 2018 championship, and I wish the team, and their coach, all the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the New Kingery Printing Company as it celebrates its 50th anniversary.

New Kingery press, located in Effingham, Illinois, will mark this milestone by installing a new, state-of-the-art press. For many years to come, this dynamic, efficient, and cost-saving upgrade will give New Kingery the capacity to meet its customers' future needs. The press's new nonstop feeders are 50 percent faster than its predecessors', able to be fed either sheets or rolls, and can handle projects that require light-weight paper on up to heavier cardboard. With the new upgrades this family-owned and operated business, which specializes in catalogs, publications, marketing collateral and book production, will continue its tradition of providing great service and high quality work.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to acknowledge Michael Kingery, who is a second generation president of New Kingery Printing Company, and all of the employees whose hard work and dedication has made New Kingery Press the success that it is today, and the success it will remain in the future. I wish the company all the best.