[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12177-12178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 2012, I offered an amendment to 
the Energy and Water appropriations bill to do the final scientific 
study to certify Yucca Mountain as the repository for high-level 
nuclear waste in this country, and I was joined by a large bipartisan 
amount from this Chamber, 326 ``yes'' votes, which I appreciate my 
colleagues who supported this amendment.
  Among those in the Michigan delegation, which has 15 Members, there 
were 11 ``yes'' votes and only four ``no'' votes. Why is this all 
important? Because what I've tried to do over the past year and a half 
is help the educational process in explaining where nuclear waste is in 
this country and where it should be. We did pass a law back in 1982. I 
wasn't here then. Many of us were not. Then there were amendments to 
that law in 1987 that said Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be our 
repository, a long-term geological repository for high-level nuclear 
waste.
  In Michigan, there are five nuclear power plants. They are all 
located along the Great Lakes. There's three on Lake Michigan, one on, 
I think, Lake Erie, right next to large bodies of water. Let's compare 
one of those, Cook, which has high-level nuclear waste on-site next to 
Lake Michigan, to where it should be, which is Yucca Mountain.
  Currently at Cook, there are 1,433 metric tons of uranium of spent 
fuel

[[Page 12178]]

on-site. At Yucca Mountain, which should be our single repository, 
there's currently none. Again, we started this in 1982. If it was at 
Yucca Mountain, it would be stored 1,000 feet underground. At Cook, 
it's stored aboveground in pools and in casks. If it was at Yucca 
Mountain, it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. At Cook, the 
nuclear waste is 19 feet above the water table. At Yucca Mountain, it 
would be 100 miles from the Colorado River where it is right next to 
Lake Michigan.

                              {time}  1010

  Yucca Mountain is obviously a mountain in a desert. There is no safer 
place.
  So, as I mentioned, in the vote total from my colleagues here on the 
floor, we addressed this on the floor. We took a vote, 326 out of 425. 
That's a huge bipartisan majority.
  Where do the Senators stand on this position? Well, you have three 
``yes'' votes and one ``no'' vote. And actually, the ``no'' vote is a 
very good friend of mine, a former classmate in the House, Senator 
Stabenow of Michigan, who has voted against moving that nuclear waste 
out of her State into a mountain underneath the desert.
  And part of this process is, because it is now politicized with the 
majority leader blocking any movement on this--elections have 
consequences; they matter--and it's time to educate the public 
throughout the country about which Senators support moving nuclear 
waste out of their State to a single repository and who does not. And, 
unfortunately, my friend Senator Stabenow is on the list as not being 
helpful.
  I also have done this numerous times. I have gone through the whole 
country and covered all the Senators as far as public statements or 
actual votes. And as you see, we have 55 Senators who said, yes, let's 
move this to Yucca Mountain. You would think, oh, that is a simple 
majority. It should be done. But the Senate operates on interesting 
rules. They have to have 60. We have 22 who have never taken a 
position, either ``yes'' or ``no'' or any public statement. Some of 
these have served 5\1/2\ years. It's pretty amazing that we have such 
an important issue pending as this, and the Senate has yet to get on 
record. If only five of these 22 would say ``yes,'' we could continue 
to move forward on addressing our nuclear waste issues.
  Now, nuclear waste is not just spent nuclear fuel. It's World War II 
defense waste that might be in Hanford, Washington. It could be 
scientific waste that might be in Idaho or in Tennessee. And especially 
after Fukushima Daiichi and the Blue Ribbon Commission, we have to have 
a single long-term geological repository.
  We've gone on record in the House. We passed a law that said it 
should be Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It's time for the Senators to get 
past their leadership and do what's in the best interest of this 
country and their own individual States.

                          ____________________