H5204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

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 

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. 

b 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 51⁄2 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. 

f 

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT 

LIMITLESS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Illinois (Mr. QUIGLEY) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, 2 nights 

ago, six people were shot inside of 15 

minutes in my home city of Chicago. 

Seven more victims were killed just 

last weekend by gunfire, including two 

16-year-old boys. In Chicago, this year 

alone, over 200 people have been killed 

in shootings. And nationwide, every 

day, 34 people are killed by guns. 

In the hours following the horrific 

tragedy in Colorado, we paused to reflect and send our prayers to families 

grieving an unimaginable loss. But now 

is the time to have a national discussion about how to stem these epidemic 

levels of gun violence. 

I wish this tragedy in Aurora were an 

isolated incident, but it seems to be 

part of a recurring pattern: 19 people 

were shot, and eight were killed in 

Tucson in 2011; 29 people were shot, and 

13 died at Fort Hood in 2009; 21 people 

were shot, and five were killed at 

Northern Illinois University in 2008; 

and 17 people were wounded, while 32 

people died at Virginia Tech in 2007. 

When will we have enough? When will 

we stand up and say we may not be 

able to stop every crime, but we can 

stop some of them and at least minimize the damage of others? 

The gun lobby doesn’t want us to 

have this conversation. First, they accuse anyone who tries to spark a national debate about how to mitigate 

gun violence with exploiting the deaths 

of innocent people. Yet no one was accused of exploitation when, after Hurricane Katrina, we discussed how to improve FEMA’s emergency response, or 

after a deadly salmonella outbreak, 

when we debated how to improve public 

safety. 

After such national tragedies, society 

should engage in a discussion about 

how to address and potentially prevent 

such tragedies from happening again. 

We might not all agree; but this is a 

democracy, and this is how public policy is made. 

Next, the gun lobby seeks to stymie 

debate by arguing that guns don’t kill 

people, people kill people. I don’t buy 

this argument. I don’t buy that there’s 

nothing we can do to stop criminals 

and the mentally ill from killing if 

they want to. Sure, we can’t stop them 

with 100 percent certainty; but we can 

make it a lot harder for would-be assassins. 

We can ensure every gun is purchased 

after a background check, rather than 

only 60 percent of guns, as is the current case. And we can reduce the fatality rate by banning assault rifles and 

high-capacity magazines that are designed exclusively for killing dozens of 

people at once. 

Finally, the gun lobby tries to argue 

that any attempt to regulate gun access is an attempt to restrict all gun 

access. This is simply not true. 

There is such a thing as commonsense, middle-ground gun reform, and 

most gun owners support it. Eightyone percent of gun owners support requiring a background check on all firearm purchases. 

Yet 40 percent of U.S. gun sales are 

conducted by private sellers who are 

not required to perform background 

checks. These private sellers operate at 

gun shows where anyone can walk in 

and buy whatever gun they want. Convicted felons, domestic abusers, the severely mentally ill, and even people on 

the terrorist watch list can—and do— 

go into gun shows and buy any gun 

they want. 

Ninety percent of all Americans also 

support strengthening databases to 

prevent the mentally ill from buying 

guns. But, sadly, 10 States have still 

failed to flag a single person as mentally ill in the national background 

check database, and 17 other States 

have fewer than 100 people listed as 

mentally ill. Over 1 million disqualifying mental health records are still 

missing from the database. 

Finally, we must have a conversation 

about getting assault weapons and 

high-capacity magazines, machines designed exclusively for killing people, 

off the streets. When you have a 100- 

round clip on your gun, you are not 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5205 

protecting your home. You are hunting 

people. 

Let’s be clear, this is not about restricting anyone’s Second Amendment 

rights. The Supreme Court has ruled 

and made clear the right of Americans 

to own guns. But while reaffirming the 

Second Amendment, the Court was 

careful to note that the amendment is 

not limitless. Justice Scalia explained 

in Columbia v. Heller that ‘‘like most 

rights, the Second Amendment is not 

unlimited. It is not a right to keep and 

carry any weapon whatsoever in any 

manner whatsoever and for whatever 

purpose.’’ 

Can we stop every shooting? No. But 

can we reduce their frequency and 

deadliness? Absolutely. Can we do it 

while still respecting the Second 

Amendment? Of this I am certain. But 

the first step toward keeping dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people is to begin the conversation. Let’s break the silence, stop the 

violence, and start that conversation. 

f 

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 

REGULATORY BURDENS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Alabama (Mr. BROOKS) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and 

Science Education, I have seen Federal 

overregulation stifle research universities. 

Earlier this year, the National Research Council of the National Academies released its report entitled, ‘‘Research Universities and the Future of 

America: Ten Breakthrough Actions 

Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and 

Security.’’ This report examined Federal regulatory burdens on America’s 

research universities. 

On June 27, the Research and Science 

Education Subcommittee held a hearing on that report and whether regulatory red tape stifles scientific research. I asked our witnesses how we 

can enhance university scientific research capabilities. Their responses are 

instructive: 

Mr. Chad Holliday, chairman of the 

National Academies Committee on Research Universities testified: 

Federal policymakers and regulators 

should review the costs and benefits of Federal regulations, eliminating those that are 

redundant and ineffective, inappropriately 

applied to the higher education sector, or 

impose costs that outweigh the benefits to 

society. 

Dr. John Mason, Auburn University 

associate provost and vice president of 

research, testified: 

A comprehensive review of policies and 

regulations is perhaps the most important in 

this report. Streamlining the process, relieving unnecessary and costly administrative 

burdens, and coordinating research priorities 

among disparate Federal agencies will invigorate research universities exponentially. 

Dr. Jeffrey Seemann, Texas A&M 

University chief research officer and 

vice president for research, testified: 

Federal agencies and Federal regulators 

must reduce and/or eliminate unnecessary, 

overly burdensome, and/or redundant regulatory and reporting obligations for universities and their faculty in order to maximize 

investments more directly into research priorities and allow faculty time to be optimally utilized. 

Dr. Leslie Tolbert, University of Arizona senior vice president for research, 

testified: 

The growing burden of compliance with the 

increasing numbers and complexity of Federal regulations consumes increasing 

amounts of time and money, leaving less for 

more direct support for research. 

b 1020 

Finally, Dr. James Siedow, vice provost for research at my alma mater, 

Duke University, testified that research universities have been subjected 

to a: 

Growing number of research-related compliance regulations that have flowed down 

from Federal agencies over the past 10 to 15 

years. In that regard, the research-related 

and quality assurance costs to Duke between 

2000 and 2010 rose over 300 percent. This perceived piling on of new reporting requirements has led to negative responses on the 

part of faculty, who see more and more of 

their time being committed not to actually 

carrying out the funded research but to a 

myriad of mundane administrative duties. 

The extreme to which some of these regulations have gone of late seems well beyond 

that needed to accomplish the original regulatory ends. 

Consistent with their views, the National Academies recommended: 

Reduce or eliminate regulations that increase administrative costs, impede research 

productivity, and deflect creative energy 

without substantially improving the research environment. 

I asked our witnesses to identify specific regulations to amend or repeal. 

They are preparing their lists. I look 

forward to receipt of their recommendations and working to repeal 

counterproductive red tape that does 

more harm than good. 

According to the National Academies, if we successfully cut wasteful 

regulations, we: 

can reduce administrative costs, enhance 

productivity, and increase the agility of research institutions. Minimizing administrative and compliance costs will also provide a 

cost benefit to the Federal Government and 

to university administrators, faculty, and 

students by freeing up resources and time to 

support education and research effort directly. With greater resources and freedom, 

universities will be better positioned to respond to the needs of their constituents in 

an increasingly competitive environment. 

Mr. Speaker, America’s research universities are essential to America’s scientific innovation. If we clear the red 

tape from their path and free them up, 

they will produce the fundamental research that fosters American 

exceptionalism and, equally important, 

results in economic growth and jobs. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO REVEREND JAMES 

LIGHTFOOT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

Texas (Ms. JACKSON LEE) for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. 

Speaker, it saddens me today to rise to 

pay tribute to the late James Lightfoot, pastor of the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, 

Texas, who lost his life just a few days 

ago. 

I am delighted I had the opportunity 

to visit Pastor Lightfoot and his 

church on their 44th anniversary. It 

was an exciting time, and he looked 

forward to the celebrating of the 44th 

year of his pastoral leadership of that 

church, as he started in 1968. I am 

gratified to salute this distinguished 

gentleman and distinguished American. He used faith in a way of service 

not only to his parishioners and to 

those whom he lead as a shepherd, but 

to those outside those bricks and mortar. 

He concentrated on philosophy and 

ministry. That was his concentration 

at Southwestern Seminary. He completed a master’s in education at Texas 

Southern University. He holds a Master of Divinity from Houston Graduate 

School of Theology, and a Doctorate of 

Ministries from the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. At 

Houston Graduate and Austin Presbyterian the emphasis was on the philosophical implications of ministry as it 

affected the culture of today. He has 

done advanced training at Texas 

Southern University and Houston 

Graduate School of Theology in counseling. He did an internship at Bellaire 

Columbia General in their Rapha Unit. 

He served as a lecturer in church administration in the Central Baptist 

Convention and teaches pastoral ministry. He was a conferee to the Transitional Church—Church Conference/ 

Southern Baptist Convention. And as 

well, he was honored to serve as third 

vice president to the Independent General District Sunday School and BTU. 

He was a gentleman that uses faith 

to be of service. He deals with the philosophical implications of peace and 

justice, issues for today’s church. How 

important that is when so many people 

are hurting. In the backdrop of the 

tragedy of Aurora, it is imperative that 

our faith leaders are engaged in our 

community and pray for their deliverance. 

I am delighted to say that he also 

worked with young people. He was a 

kind spirit. He was a charitable spirit. 

He was a professor at LeTourneau University—that’s how much he cared for 

young people—where he taught Bible 

and Family. He was likewise an adjunct professor. He served on the mayor’s affirmative action committee. He 

served as the chairperson of a Black 

Ministries Committee of the Union 

Baptist Association. As well, he has 

served in many civic and community 

affairs. As I indicated, he always had a 

summer program for young people who 

needed a place to come. He always had 

a smile on his face. He was always joyful. And, of course, he was a wonderful 

husband to his wonderful and devoted 

wife. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE