[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1581-H1582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it's been a couple of weeks since I've been 
able to come down to the floor and talk about high-level nuclear waste. 
As you know, through the past year, I've been coming to the floor. I am 
chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee. We have 
jurisdiction over a lot of different types of waste. One of those is 
nuclear waste.
  I also have come to the floor to just give a short history lesson on 
where we're at, where we should be, and the problems that stand in our 
way. In 1982, the national government passed the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. In 1987 amendments were then offered that said we need to have a 
long-term geological repository and that repository should be Yucca 
Mountain.
  So I've been going around the country and looking at the different 
places where we have high-level nuclear waste, whether it's on the west 
coast, the State of Florida, Massachusetts, in the central part. Today 
I go to the State of Colorado, which has nuclear waste in the State, 
and I want to compare it to where it should be.
  As a review, Yucca Mountain is, by law, defined as the place where we 
should put high-level nuclear waste. Currently, there's no nuclear 
waste on-site. The waste would be stored a thousand feet underground. 
The waste would be a thousand feet above the water table because it's 
in a desert. And the waste is 100 miles from the Colorado River.
  Now, compare that to the nuclear waste that is at a location called 
Fort St. Vrain. Currently, there are 30 million tons of uranium, of 
spent fuel, on-site. The waste is stored above-ground in vaults. The 
waste is less than 25 feet above the groundwater, and the waste is 1 
mile from the South Platte River. A mile from the South Platte River, 
100 miles from the Colorado River.
  So part of this debate is, why haven't we moved and complied with 
Federal law? Well, we all know that. It's the Senator from the State of 
Nevada, who's made it his personal crusade to block our ability to 
proceed and has blocked funding for the final scientific study.
  This whole debate has moved into the political arena, not the arena 
of law, and in the U.S. Senate you really need 60 votes to move public 
policy. So I've been coming down to the floor and looking at Senators 
from States that surround Colorado and see where they have either 
declared their position or cast votes on the national repository, Yucca 
Mountain.
  As you see, from Texas, you've got Senator Cornyn, who's a yes; 
Senator Hutchison is a yes. Oklahoma, Senator Coburn's a yes; Senator 
Inhofe's a yes. New Mexico, Senator Bingaman has voted no. Senator 
Bennet from Colorado is new, hasn't really stated a position. We'd like 
to see him get on the record.
  My two friends, the Udall cousins, both Tom and Mark, we will check 
the record, but I believe that they've cast a vote in the Senate, and 
if not, they haven't stated a recent position.
  Why is that important? Because we've been tallying where the Senators 
are, and right now we really need 60 votes to come to conclusion. We've 
already spent $15 billion, and we have no nuclear waste on-site. Right 
now, based upon our calculations, we have 45 Senators that would 
support moving of high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. We have 
17 who we don't know their position, and we have 16 who have stated or 
they have voted in the past as no. So our challenge here is to get 
these Senators on record and show the collective will.
  Now, we've done it in the House. We've had votes in the House in 
which we had about 300 Members of this Chamber, a bipartisan vote, in 
support of moving forward on the funding, the scientific funding to 
finally finish a single repository at Yucca Mountain.
  It's very important for our national security. It's very important 
for all the locations around. We already have 104 nuclear power plants 
in this country; all have nuclear waste on-site.
  We also have nuclear waste that's involved with our defense industry 
back at Fort St. Vrain. That waste was supposed to be transported to 
Idaho, but litigation has kept it there. If we don't move that waste, 
then by 2035 the Federal Government will have to pay the State of 
Colorado $15,000 a day until we take the responsibility that we have 
committed to as a national government.
  I appreciate this time, Mr. Speaker, to come down. We'll continue to 
get

[[Page H1582]]

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

                          ____________________