August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5697 

Mr. Speaker, more importantly or 

just as importantly, in too many of the 

communities in the Niger region, people drink water from wells that are 

contaminated with benzene, which is a 

known carcinogen. 

b 1920 

They drink this water, which has 

been estimated to be 900 times above 

the level that the World Health Organization uses as its guideline, 900 times 

above the standards set by the World 

Health Organization. 

Since 2010, Nigeria has become one of 

our main strategic partners on the continent of Africa. This nation, Nigeria, 

is our Nation’s second-leading trading 

partner behind Great Britain. Mr. 

Speaker, these and other facts mean 

that the struggle of the people of the 

Niger Delta—the struggle of the Nigerian people—is also the struggle of the 

American people. 

Mr. Speaker, the destiny of the two 

economies, the Nigerian economy and 

the American economy, are interconnected, interrelated, and intertwined. We cannot, and I emphasize, 

this Nation cannot afford to stay indifferent to the struggles of the people of 

the Niger Delta and the cleanup of the 

pollution that has been devastating 

this region for over the past 50 years. 

The struggle of the people of the Niger 

Delta is indeed our struggle, the struggle of the American people. 

I have led, and with cosigners, have 

introduced H. Con. Res 121 to urge all 

the stakeholders in the Niger oil and 

gas industry to come together, to work 

together, to collaborate together, and 

to address collectively the environmental impact of the oil and gas production in the Niger Delta. 

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we 

should commend this Congress—and I 

certainly commend President 

Goodluck Jonathan for presenting the 

new Petroleum Industry Bill, the PIB, 

to the Nigerian Parliament, which has 

the support of all the stakeholders and 

has the input of all of the stakeholders. 

I also want to commend President 

Goodluck Jonathan for announcing the 

creation of the Hydro-Carbon Pollution 

Restoration Project, HYPREP, to look 

into the Ogoni land degradation, destruction, and devastation from the 

aforementioned oil spills. I applaud 

President Goodluck Jonathan for taking these initiatives. These are very 

important, critical first steps. It is my 

hope that all of the affected stakeholders will again come and meet again 

soon and collaborate strongly together 

to make the cleanup and rebuilding of 

the Niger region become a success 

story that the world will admire and 

that the world will celebrate. 

The new energy regulatory framework that’s being created must be fair, 

it must be transparent, and it must 

create an appropriate avenue for the 

economic empowerment for local Niger 

Delta communities affected by the industry, including the women and the 

youth. 

Mr. Speaker, we cannot stand by. We 

must assist in this effort. The clock is 

ticking. We must support the people of 

the Niger Delta. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

f 

RECOGNIZING CHABAD 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. SHERMAN) is recognized for 

the remainder of the hour as the designee of the minority leader. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today to recognize the unique and essential work being done by Chabad. 

Chabad is known by many for its annual telethon. Where else on the TV 

dial can one go to see dancing rabbis 

once a year? Chabad is better known 

for meeting the spiritual needs of millions, for meeting the economic and 

counseling needs of thousands who are 

faced with destitution or faced with 

the scourge of substance abuse. 

I would like to extend my regards to 

Rabbi Cunin and the entire Cunin family for their tireless efforts on behalf of 

Chabad and Yiddishkeit everywhere. 

For decades, I’ve had a chance to 

work with Rabbi Mordy Einbinder and 

Rabbi Joshua Gordon, and all of the 

rabbis of Chabad in the San Fernando 

Valley, an organization that has grown 

from one storefront to now 25 centers 

of vibrant communities dedicated to 

worship and to study across the San 

Fernando Valley. 

Chabad does hugely important work 

for the local community. They have 

taken a commercial-grade kitchen and 

turned it into a one-stop social service 

center to feed and care for thousands. 

And Chabad’s drug prevention and 

treatment program, PRIDE, reaches 

thousands of at-risk youth in the San 

Fernando Valley and across the Los 

Angeles area. 

For the last decade, I’ve worked with 

Chabad to achieve something very important to the Jewish people, the return from Russia of the Rebbe’s papers. 

The Schneerson Library and Archives 

are of such important sacredness to 

Chabad and to many others, and yet 

they are still held in Moscow by the 

Russian regime. 

This Congress passed Jackson-Vanik. 

There’s discussion of us changing that 

important law to allow for Russian 

goods to be sold in the United States 

more freely, but Jackson-Vanik’s purpose was to force Russia to let our people go. That process will not, in my 

mind, be complete until Russia lets the 

Rebbe’s papers go as well. 

So I look forward to Russia releasing 

those spiritually important documents. 

And I look forward to working with all 

the Chabad rabbis on issues from Moscow to the San Fernando Valley. 

f 

IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING 

AMERICA AND THE WORLD 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Illinois (Mr. SHIMKUS) 

for 30 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time yielded to me to really 

cover a couple different issues and 

areas that have been pending either in 

the District or in our Nation—or even 

internationally—and using this opportunity to place into the RECORD and 

also speak to you—in essence, speaking 

to the Nation—on the importance of 

these issues. 

b 1930 

First what I would like to do is really 

commend Chairman LUCAS and Ranking Member PETERSON for passing an 

ag bill out of their committee. 

Now, what my producers are asking 

is to pass a full ag bill on the floor 

sooner rather than later. In fact, I’ve 

seen, and I’m sure you’ve seen, an ag 

bill now. But we were successful today 

in helping mitigate a flaw in the last 

ag bill in ensuring that the livestock 

provisions and the insurance portion of 

the ag bill of 5 years ago, it wasn’t 

funded for this last year. 

As everyone knows, this is a very 

challenging year for the agricultural 

sector. I was able to visit a dairy farm 

in my district last Friday, the 

Timmerman family, and there I was 

able to meet with my producers, both 

commodity, livestock and dairy, and in 

my part of the State, sometimes they 

are doing all of the above. 

So I brought down—actually, they 

brought to me and I brought back to 

Washington to give an example of the 

challenges we’re under. Here is a good 

ear of corn that has been irrigated and 

is what we would expect to see almost 

every year in southern Illinois. This 

was what came off of a stalk on the 

Timmerman dairy farm. And so this 

gives you, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity 

to understand the challenges that are 

faced. 

Now, in a dairy operation, like a beef 

operation, they’re growing the corn to 

feed their livestock. So if this is what’s 

supposed to feed their livestock, 

they’re used to getting this, you can 

understand why passing this disaster 

relief portion to fully fund the ag bill 

to help them out is very, very important. 

Another producer brought this, which 

is the stalk and even a worse—well, it’s 

not even an ear of corn. It’s decayed, it 

hasn’t formed, and that’s what a lot of 

our producers are seeing in Illinois during this time. 

Now, our agriculture producers are a 

healthy stock, and they understand 

that the world is changing and that 

there are spending and fiscal challenges and difficulties. They’re asking 

for a simple premise. They just want to 

be able to have an ag insurance product 

that they can rely on, that they can 

choose to buy into or not. They don’t 

want to be placed in a position of having no ag insurance and then depending 

upon if there’s a drought on disaster 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

payments from the national government, as has happened in the past before we really had a safety net and an 

ag insurance program and plan. 

They know that other provisions of 

the ag bill are going by the wayside. 

They know that direct payments are 

going to go by the wayside. So they are 

just very concerned, as they should be, 

that this is the end of the authorization of a current farm bill. The important thing is to get the next farm bill 

reauthorized so that, when they start 

buying the seed and planning which 

field they’re going to plant what crop, 

they can then make a decision whether 

they want to insure that crop, and they 

will have some expectation that if they 

have another bad year they will at 

least be able to survive to the next 

year. 

Giving a last story about my ag producers, I was up in another part of central Illinois. I was talking to one of the 

producers, and he projected—and I 

didn’t know for sure that his loss of his 

crop was about $400,000, which is a pretty big loss. With ag insurance, his loss 

is only going to be $200,000. 

Now, I know you, Mr. Speaker, come 

from a business background, but I 

think it’s very important to let the 

American public know that these producers are still going to have a loss 

even with an ag insurance product out 

there. They’re not going to make them 

whole. But what they will do is allow 

them to give it another go the next 

year and get back into the field. That’s 

the importance of an ag bill. 

Again, I really salute Chairman 

LUCAS and Ranking Member PETERSON, 

and I look forward to talking to my 

colleagues on the importance of having 

an ag bill, a long ag bill, a 5-year ag 

bill, so that our producers have some 

certainty when, as this year has shown, 

there could be uncertain times that 

they are powerless to control. If there 

were a private sector option, maybe we 

could have that debate of whether 

there should be ag insurance at all. 

But the reality is the only insurance 

product available is that in which the 

Federal Government will help offset 

some of the cost, let the producers 

have some skin in the game, and then 

let’s manage these risks so that we 

could still have the safest, least expensive food supply in the world. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to turn my 

attention now to some problem statements coming out from the majority 

leader of the other body, Mr. REID, on 

a commissioner of the United States 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I 

pulled from the Web site the values 

statement and the principles of good 

regulation which is on the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission site. And one 

of the first things on here, it says: 

Independence: Nothing but the highest possible standards of ethical performance and 

professionalism should influence regulation. 

Now, as we have learned from press 

reports on Monday, Senate Majority 

Leader HARRY REID got angry, and for 

once, it wasn’t directed at Republicans. 

He directed his tirade at Bill Magwood, 

a commissioner at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Why did he focus such venom and energy at a little known public official at 

an independent agency? He thought he 

had successfully strong-armed an independent commissioner to vote the way 

he wanted to. In fact, the majority 

leader is acting—we all hate bullies, 

Mr. Speaker, and to have the majority 

leader of the Senate be a bully to a 

commissioner duly appointed being 

independent is egregious. 

According to one article: 

Reid said he was assured by Pete Rouse, a 

senior White House official, that Magwood 

would also oppose Yucca. 

Now, Reid thinks Magwood worked 

against the effort to shut down Yucca. 

For that, Reid says Magwood is ‘‘one of 

the most unethical, prevaricating, incompetent people I’ve ever dealt with.’’ 

Now, this is the majority leader of 

the Senate besmirching a duly appointed commissioner confirmed by the 

Senate because the leader of the Senate has believed he had this person’s 

vote versus the principles of the United 

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nothing but the highest possible 

standards of ethical performance and 

professionalism should influence regulation. 

Magwood unethical? I think the majority leader has got it backwards. 

Isn’t it unethical for Members of Congress to pressure government officials 

to vote a certain way on adjudications? 

Now Senator REID is on a tirade because he thinks his intimidation 

wasn’t successful in convincing Commissioner Magwood to ignore the law. 

Senator REID wasn’t embarrassed, 

though. He threw a party for his former 

employee, who is now the ex-commissioner. That’s the kind of behavior that 

the public has had concerns with. This 

is publicly documented in the record. 

These are quotes by the majority leader of the Senate. It’s not debatable 

that Commissioner Magwood is a duly 

appointed and confirmed commissioner 

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

confirmed by the Senate and appointed 

by the President. 

Mr. Speaker, now I will go to the 

other part. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair will remind Members to refrain 

from engaging in personalities toward 

the Senate or its Members. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I will 

just read the Senator’s quote that’s 

quoted in the story: 

Reid said he was assured by Pete Rouse, a 

senior White House official, that Magwood 

would also oppose Yucca. ‘‘I met with him 

because Pete Rouse asked me to meet with 

him. I said, ‘Is he okay on Yucca Mountain?’ 

Pete said, ‘Yeah.’’’ 

b 1940 

The story continues: 

Reid said that Magwood’s behind-thescenes maneuvering was unforgivable. ‘‘He’s 

a first-class rat. He lied to Rouse, he lied to 

me, and he had a plan.’’ 

Mr. Speaker, I’m not making this up. 

This is quotes. I’m not assuming what 

the majority leader’s intentions were. 

I’m just reading quotes in a recently 

published newspaper about the majority leader of the Senate’s position to a 

duly appointed and confirmed member 

of an independent regulatory commission. I think the leader owes Commissioner Magwood an apology. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, as I said in 

my opening comments, this gives me 

an opportunity to cover farm bill 

issues, national nuclear regulatory 

issues, some international issues. 

I’ve been concerned about democracy 

in Eastern European countries for 

many years, so let me come to the 

floor to you to talk about Ukraine and 

the former Prime Minister. Ms. 

Tymoshenko continues to serve a 7- 

year sentence in Kharkiv, while being 

prosecuted in multiple criminal cases 

amid international outcry from the 

United States and the European Union. 

The trial against Ms. Tymoshenko in 

the gas case was described as ‘‘selective 

justice’’ and ‘‘political persecution’’ in 

statements by the U.S. and the EU. 

The court found Ms. Tymoshenko 

guilty of abuse of her power, sentenced 

her to 7 years in prison, and ordered 

her to pay the state 188 million. 

On October 24, 2011, Ms. Tymoshenko 

filed an appeal against the sentence, 

which was rejected on December 23, 

2011. On December 30, 2011, Ms. 

Tymoshenko was transferred to a penal 

colony in Kharkiv, where her health 

has significantly deteriorated. The doctors who were allowed to examine her 

this past February stated that she was 

ill, in constant pain, and required significant care. 

Ms. Tymoshenko went on a hunger 

strike from April 20 to May 9 in protest 

of what has happened to Ukrainian democracy and what is happening to her 

in prison. 

I support my colleague, CHRIS

SMITH’s resolution, House Resolution 

730, calling on Ukrainian authorities to 

release political opposition leaders and 

hold free and fair elections. The resolution calls for denying U.S. visas to 

Ukrainian officials involved in serious 

human rights abuses, anti-democratic 

actions, such as electoral fraud, or corruption, including officials involved in 

selective prosecution, persecution of 

political opponent. 

I call on Ukrainian officials to immediately free Ms. Tymoshenko. 

Also, Mr. Speaker, I spend time following, as I said, democracy issues in 

Eastern European areas, former captive nations, and I come to the floor 

also to talk about democracy in 

Belarus. 

I continue to be gravely concerned 

about the condition of political prisoners in Belarus and serious violations 

by Belarus of its commitments to respect human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5699 

Despite the release of two political 

prisoners, former presidential candidate Andrei Sannikov and his associate, Dmitry Bondarenko, the fundamentals of President Lukashenka’s 

dictatorial rule have not changed. 

Thirteen political prisoners remain in 

prison, including Mikalai Statkevich, 

Ales Bialiatski, Syarhei Kavalenka, 

Zmitser Dashkevich, Pavel 

Seviarynets, Mikalai Autukhovich, 

Eduard Lobov and Mikalai Dziadok. 

While journalist Andrzej Poczobut 

has been released pending trial, we believe that his arrest for illegally defaming the president was politically 

motivated and that the conditions imposed on his release are designed to 

further limit his ability to exercise his 

human rights. Moreover, recent days 

have seen the surge of the offices of the 

Union of Poles and the confiscation of 

equipment supposedly related to Mr. 

Poczobut’s case. 

We also recently have seen the arrest 

and detention and the release of journalist Pavel Sverdlov of the European 

Radio for Belarus for ‘‘using foul language.’’ Maybe we should consider that 

here sometimes. Such arrests and 

short-term detentions are becoming an 

ever-more common means to silence 

dissent in Belarus. 

Increased restrictions on Alex 

Byalyatski and the court order issued 

July 4 for seizure of the offices of the 

Vyasna Human Rights Center are very 

disturbing. 

Belarus, which already has applied 

travel restrictions on members of the 

opposition and human rights activists, 

recently has taken another step to restrict the fundamental freedom of 

movement, the right to leave one’s 

country and return to it. 

On July 12, the Belarusian authorities denied the right of Victor 

Kornienko, cochairman of the Initiative for Fair and Free Elections, to 

travel to Vienna to participate in the 

week’s Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting. This restriction of Mr. 

Kornienko’s freedom of movement 

calls into question Belarus’ sincerity 

and commitment to change. The U.S. 

must protest this latest disregard of 

fundamental freedoms by Belarus. 

The U.S. must call on Belarus to release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, to restore 

their full political and civil rights, and 

to stop the ongoing harassment of political activists, civil society representatives, human rights activists, 

and independent journalists. 

Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much 

time I have remaining. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 14 minutes remaining. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, last but 

not least, what I’ve done on a weekly 

basis is raise the issue of concern and 

address the high-level nuclear waste 

storage site in issue in this country. 

And so I really—since we’re very close 

to the end of the session, very few 

working days here left in Washington 

before the elections, I’m not sure how 

many more days I’ll have available to 

come down to the floor—I’m finishing 

where I started over a year ago, going 

through the country and comparing 

nuclear waste sites to where they’re at 

and where they should be. And why 

would I do this? 

Well, I would do this to help educate 

you, Speaker, on the fact that we have 

high-level nuclear waste stored 

throughout this country. And a lot of 

people do not know that we tried to address this in 1982 with passage of a law 

called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

And in 1987, and I wasn’t here then, but 

this Chamber, this body, this country 

said, not only do we want to find a way 

to store our high-level nuclear waste, 

but we want it placed in a mountain, 

underneath a mountain in a desert. 

And that place is called Yucca Mountain. 

Now, since that time we’ve spent 

about $15 billion over 30 years investigating, doing the scientific studies to 

see if Yucca Mountain, again, a mountain in a desert, is a suitable place to 

put high-level nuclear waste. I believe 

it is, but I’m not a scientist. 

So what this Chamber did a couple of 

week ago is, in our appropriation bill, 

we asked our colleagues should we, as a 

national government, commit the final 

dollars to do the final scientific study 

to come to a final conclusion of whether Yucca Mountain is safe. Over about 

326 of my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, from rural areas to urban areas, 

said let’s keep going with the current 

public policy. Let’s finish the study so 

we know if Yucca Mountain is indeed 

safe, and let’s move to address our 

high-level nuclear waste and concerns 

throughout this country. 

Why is that important? 

Well, let’s go to one site. Now, for 

you, Mr. Speaker, I’ve done this almost 

at least every month, probably every 

week we’ve been in session, going 

around the country at different locations from Tennessee to Illinois to 

Maryland, but where I started first is a 

very telling and educational location, 

and it’s called Hanford. 

b 1950 

Now, Hanford. I have a lot of colleagues and a lot of the new observers 

of our process here in Washington who 

sometimes think they should just shut 

down all government—stop spending, 

and don’t have a Department of Energy. Sometimes you have to have a 

Department, and Hanford is a perfect 

example. Hanford is a legacy World 

War II nuclear waste site. We are still 

paying for winning World War II, and 

we are still paying for developing the 

nuclear weapons that stopped the war, 

especially in Asia. Obviously, the 

bombs dropped in Japan. And how are 

we paying for it? Well, we still have 

Hanford. I’ll tell you that Hanford is 

right in the central, deep southern part 

of Washington State. This is the Columbia River. 

So what do we have in Hanford? 

At Hanford, we have 53 million gallons of nuclear waste on site. Now, this 

is not spent nuclear fuel. This is the 

chemical sludge—highly toxic and very 

nasty stuff—that was used to help, 

kind of refine uranium into the fuel 

needed to have nuclear weapons. There 

are 53 million gallons. If you’ve ever 

been by a refinery and if you’ve seen a 

tank farm with crude oil—you’ll see 

these great big tanks where some 

might be 750,000 gallons and some 

might be a million gallons—that’s 

what’s at Hanford, but they’re all buried underground. In these tanks are the 

53 million gallons of this toxic sludge, 

and as I point to it here, some of it is 

leaking. Now, the waste is stored 10 

feet underground because it’s buried 

underground. It is 250 feet above the 

water table. Remember, some of this is 

leaking, and it’s 1 mile from the Columbia River. 

So I ask the question: Is there a better site? 

I think the government, over the 

years, has said there is a better place 

to put this stuff. In fact, this stuff is 

being processed and placed into canisters to go to one location, and that 

location is Yucca Mountain. 

Now, Yucca Mountain should have 

been opened years ago. What do we 

have at this site at Yucca Mountain? 

Right now, there is no nuclear waste 

on site. The waste will be stored 1,000 

feet underground versus 10 feet. The 

waste would be 1,000 feet above the 

water table versus 250 feet. The waste 

would be 100 miles from the Colorado 

River versus 1 mile from the Columbia 

River. 

So I think the choice is fairly clear. 

Our promise to Washington State, like 

our promise to the nuclear utilities, 

was that, as they created this mess, we 

as a Nation—national government— 

would take it over and that we would 

safely store it in a single repository. 

That repository is here. However, we’re 

not there yet. 

The question is: Why aren’t we there? 

Because we have a Senate that is 

blocking the ability to have the final 

votes and to pay for the final scientific 

study to get this moving. And who is 

the majority leader of the Senate? Senator HARRY REID. But let’s look at the 

Senators from the region. Where are 

they at on this issue? Who are the Senators who border the Columbia River? 

Well, it’s pretty telling. 

Senator MURRAY has voted ‘‘yes’’ for 

Yucca Mountain. Senator WYDEN from 

Oregon has voted ‘‘yes.’’ Senator 

MERKLEY has a ‘‘no stated position.’’ 

We don’t know where he’s at, although 

I think it would be a very important 

issue for that area. Senator CANTWELL

voted ‘‘no’’ on moving the high-level 

nuclear waste from Hanford to Yucca 

Mountain. 

Why is looking at individual Senators and where they’re at on this position important? 

Because there are 100 Senators. With 

the way the rules in the other Chamber 

work, they really have to have 60 to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

really move a bill on the floor, so I’ve 

been trying to do a tally of where these 

Senators are. Either in public statements or in having cast votes either in 

their Chamber or as former Members of 

the House, 55 say, yes, Yucca Mountain 

should be our long-term geological repository and that we should be taking 

all our nuclear waste and putting it in 

a safe, secure cave in a mountain in a 

desert. For 22, we don’t know their positions, and that’s a lot of Senators. 

For 23, we have ‘‘nays.’’ So, if Senator 

CANTWELL would move from a ‘‘nay’’ to 

a ‘‘yea,’’ you’re at 56. Then you really 

need only four more Senators, and 

there is a whole boatload. Some of 

them are up for reelection, and they 

haven’t had a chance to make a public 

statement or to have a position on nuclear waste in 6 years. 

What I find very confusing is that, in 

these 6 years, a lot of them come from 

States that have nuclear waste. Again, 

I like to talk about Hanford because 

this is Department of Defense waste 

that was created in developing the 

atomic bombs to win the Cold War— 

not the Cold War. Well, actually, they 

won the Cold War, too. They will say: a 

mutual assured destruction, an ability 

to have nuclear weapons to help protect Western Europe and to, really, 

protect the world. A lot of those weapons were created and developed right 

here at Hanford, but we still have the 

waste remaining. So we are looking for 

five more U.S. Senators to be able to 

move the bill on the floor and to pay 

for the final scientific study so as to 

keep our promise to the American people and to those who sacrificed land 

and location like Hanford. 

The U.S. Government just kind of 

swooped in and said, We need this 

place. I think the story goes, We’re 

going to do hydroelectric power. It’s 

going to be cheap fuel because we’re 

going to need a lot of energy. They displaced farmers. They took over the 

land, and we’ve left 53 million gallons 

of nuclear waste on site. We owe it to 

them to get it to a safe, secure location. 

The Federal Government realized 

that in 1982 by passing a law called the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Federal 

Government then amended that law in 

1987. In the years following, we moved 

diligently to finalize the preparations 

so that we could move forward. Then 

we hit a roadblock, and that roadblock 

was the election of President Obama, 

who made a promise to the majority 

leader of the Senate that we’ll stop 

movement on Yucca Mountain—after 

30 years, $15 billion, and no solution in 

sight. Now there is talk about, well, 

maybe we can do something else. I can 

guarantee you, if we do something else, 

it’s going to take—what?—30 more 

years, and it’s going to take $15 billion. 

At the end of that, we’re going to come 

to the same conclusion where we’re not 

going to have a solution. 

So, when you hear people talk about 

interim storage, we have interim storage. Guess where it’s at? It’s around 

our major metropolitan areas. It’s 

around Chicago. It’s around Boston, 

Massachusetts. It’s around Los Angeles. We have interim storage, and 

that’s our nuclear utilities. Now we 

have interim storage in Hanford, Washington. 

It is time for us as a body to man 

up—to accept our responsibilities, to 

finish the scientific study, and to have 

a long-term geological repository underneath a mountain in a desert so 

that we keep our promises and so that 

we protect this land for future generations. 

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time 

and the diligence. With that, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

f 

b 2000 

TROUBLING TIMES 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. GOHMERT) 

for 30 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, these 

are interesting times we live in, and 

it’s nice to follow my friend, Mr. SHIMKUS, a graduate of the United States 

Military Academy, a servant of this 

country in the military, and still a 

servant in this country. It’s good to 

call him friend. Hopefully he calls me 

friend, as well. 

These are troubling times. When the 

name Justice Department depicts 

something other than justice, it’s a 

very troubling time. Some of us are extremely familiar with the prosecution 

of what most would consider the most 

significant, largest prosecution of terrorism support and funding in the 

United States history, which occurred 

in Federal district court in Dallas, 

Texas. It was begun under the Bush 

Justice Department, all part of the 

aftermath of 9/11 because, as President 

Bush indicated, we can’t just go after 

the people that actually plotted and 

carried out the events of 9/11, who plotted and carried out other terrorist attacks against the United States. It’s 

not enough. We’ve got to go after those 

who have supported those efforts at 

terrorism, have supported the killing 

of innocent people around the world. 

And particularly, we have to protect 

Americans. And for those who have 

supported terrorism and continue to 

support terrorism, the United States 

must step forward in order to protect 

itself. 

The Justice Department in November 

of 2008, I believe, got convictions of the 

individuals they had prosecuted in the 

Holy Land Foundation trial. Not only 

did they get convictions, they got over 

100 different counts in which they got 

convictions. Through that, there were 

names of coconspirators who were 

named and set forward in the pleadings, and evidence was introduced, admitted into evidence at trial that 

showed there were groups and individuals in the United States that were 

supporting terrorism, and there was 

significant evidence to support that. 

In fact, two of those groups, CAIR 

and the Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, had moved that their names 

be stricken from the pleadings as 

named coconspirators in supporting 

terrorism. At that time, the acting 

U.S. Attorney did a very good job not 

only in the prosecution, but also in the 

pleading to the Federal district court 

there before Judge Solis, and he established plenty of evidence so that Judge 

Solis found there was plenty of evidence to support the coconspirators 

continuing to have their names in the 

pleading, and they were not satisfied 

with the ruling of the Federal district 

court. They appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ended up ruling 

that, yes, there was plenty of evidence 

to support the fact that CAIR, ISNA, 

and others were supporting terrorism, 

so their names would not be stricken 

from the pleadings, they would be kept 

in the pleadings as named coconspirators of terrorism. 

After that very successful prosecution that was in conformity with President Bush’s promise that if you’re not 

with us, you’re with them, and those 

who support terrorism would be made 

to account, that began the first stage 

of the prosecution of supporters of terrorism. Those were people and individual cases, those were organizations 

right here in America that were supporting terrorism, funding terrorism. 

Yes, they were supporting charities. 

Yes, they were giving money to good 

causes. That acted as a cover for them 

also funding terrorism, funding known 

terrorist organizations who had actually killed people and destroyed things, 

committing acts of war. 

Then, the Attorney General became 

Eric Holder. The President, the Commander in Chief, became Barack Hussein Obama. We know it’s okay to use 

the President’s full name, because he 

proudly uses it when he goes to Muslim 

nations. In fact, the first nations the 

President went to and apologized for 

America’s arrogance and divisiveness, 

dismissiveness were Muslim nations. In 

fact, going to Cairo, he snubbed America’s ally, Israel’s ally, Mubarak, who 

is not a fine, upstanding wonderful 

man but a man who had managed to 

keep some peace along the Israel border, a man who had agreements with 

this government just as this government had agreements with Qadhafi, despite the blood on his hands from terrorist involvement himself. In fact, 

I’ve read of reports of people even from 

our own Senate who have been over 

there, one who had tweeted that he had 

met with Colonel Qadhafi: ‘‘He was an 

interesting man. I met with him at his 

ranch.’’ I understand that Senator now 

says that tweet didn’t come from him. 

But there were Americans from this 

government negotiating with Qadhafi, 

working out agreements, and then they 

turned their backs on people with 

whom they had worked agreements: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE