[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Page 1234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. 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.

                          ____________________