[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H2333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SITE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Shimkus) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, before I talk about Yucca Mountain, let me 
just respond to my colleague from Virginia.
  Since 2002, food stamps have increased 267 percent, and this 
reconciliation bill will cut, I think, about 3 percent. Again, since 
2002, food stamps have increased 267 percent.
  The Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years, so it's very difficult 
to admonish the House on the budget process when the Senate still has 
yet to pass a budget.
  And what we're really concerned about is the hollowing out of our 
military force. If the sequestration goes on as planned, we'll have the 
smallest Air Force in the history of this country that we've ever seen 
before the Air Force was enacted, the smallest Navy since, I believe, 
1915, and a huge decrease in our standing force. That's what the debate 
is about, and I look forward to having that chance on the floor.
  As the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, one 
of my jurisdictional responsibilities is high-level nuclear waste. I've 
come to the floor numerous times to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, the 
various locations that we store high-level nuclear waste and compare it 
to where, by law, we should.
  By law, we should, based upon the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and 
an amendment in 1987, we should be storing it underneath a mountain in 
a desert. So let's compare that location to a place in Perry, Ohio.
  Perry, Ohio, has 452 metric tons of uranium of spent fuel on-site 
versus zero at Yucca Mountain. The waste is stored aboveground in pools 
and casks. The waste would be stored in Yucca Mountain 1,000 feet 
underground.
  The waste at Perry would be 12 feet above the groundwater. At Yucca 
Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. And at Perry, 
it is located on Lake Erie, 35 miles from Cleveland, where Yucca 
Mountain, the waste is 100 miles from the Colorado River and probably 
100-or-so-odd miles from Las Vegas, Nevada.
  Clearly, in a comparison and contrast, if you want a safe and secure 
location--of course we also own the land around Yucca Mountain--
clearly, it's easy to determine that Yucca Mountain is a much safer 
place than on one of our Great Lakes.
  So then I talk about, well, have the Senators addressed this in their 
past? Because the reason why we're not moving forward on Yucca Mountain 
is Majority Leader Reid has stopped it, along with President Obama.
  Well, Senator Brown, when he was a House Member, voted for Yucca 
Mountain in 2002. So did Senator Portman. Both are Senators from the 
State of Ohio right now.
  Senator Mitch McConnell has stated, and so he supports Yucca 
Mountain:

       When it comes to nuclear energy, we have seen this 
     administration abandon plans and millions in taxpayer dollars 
     before without much consideration of the consequences. Take, 
     for example, its unwillingness to follow through on the 
     nuclear storage site, Yucca.

  We've already spent about $15 billion at Yucca Mountain, and Leader 
McConnell is addressing that issue.
  Senator Paul, so far, has been silent. We hope that he comes out with 
a stated position.
  So what does that do to our tally of where Senators are? And we've 
reached over the 50-vote mark, based upon our analysis of past 
statements and past votes. With 51 Senators who would vote ``yes,'' 
that would be a simple majority if the Senate moved by majority 
standards. Nineteen are undecided--Senator Paul is our recent add--and 
20 who identify, based on their past statements, having voted ``no'' or 
have made statements in opposition to Yucca Mountain.
  Why is this important? It's important because we've spent over almost 
three decades now trying to find a safe, secure location to store high-
level nuclear waste. With the Japanese event of last year, Fukushima 
Daiichi, and the debate on containment vessels and high-level nuclear 
waste, it is time now to move public policy, or the other body needs to 
impress upon Leader Reid that it is imperative for this country to have 
a centralized location.

                              {time}  1020

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

                          ____________________