mr. shimkus: yes, i do, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 2273 and to insert extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 431 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2273. the chair appoints the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2273 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend subtitle d of the solid waste disposal act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use and provide for the proper management and disposal of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, and the g

mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. third time on the floor to talk about high level nuclear waste and yucca mountain. i started talking about hanford in washington state comparing it to the yucca facility. in hanford, 53 million gallons of nuclear waste, zero at yucca. nuclear waste stored 10 feet under ground in hanford. waste would be stored 1 now feet under ground in yucca. 250 feet from the water table. at yucca the nuclear waste would be 100 miles from the river. hanford, it's one mile from the nearest river. so what are the senator's position on yucca mountain in washington state and oregon knowing we have 53 million gallons of nuclear waste one mile from the river? senator cantwell is not supportive. senator murray is supportive at least in her public statements. senator wyden did not support it. and senator merkley is silent. they should not be silent. a couple weeks ago i then moved to my home state of illinois and the zion nuclear decommissioned power plant that still has high level nuclear waste on site. aga

mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to come down here to thank the rules committee for the modified open rule and a chance for us to go through this bill bit by bit, amendment by amendment to address concerns that my friends on the other side might have about? . -- about this. and finally, my good friend from oregon, and i appreciate his passion, but i come to the floor to talk about the jobs. and the e.p.a., who i also rally against numerous times, produced the cross-state air pollution rule in july. the result of that is two power plants in illinois are closing, one is 369 megawatts, the other one is 302 megawatts. that means 671 megawatts of power is going to be offline. if you understand supply and demand, less supply, similar demand or higher demand, higher cost. so it's very easy to reject higher energy cost -- project higher energy costs for everybody across this country because of that rule. secondly, the job losses. in the first plant 14 management and 39 union representative employees will lose the

mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor a second time as i promised a couple weeks ago to talk about high level nuclear waste and the yucca mountain repository. two weeks ago i highlighted han ford, washington, a d.o.e. site that has 53 million gallons of nuclear waste. 53 million gallons of nuclear waste stored 10 feet under ground in hanks that are leaking . the waste of 250 feet above the water table. and the waste is one mile from the columbia river. versus federal law which said in 1982 that yucca mountain should be our national repository. let's look at yucca mountain. right now there's no nuclear waste on site. the waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground. the waste is 1,000 feet above the water table. and the waste would be 100 miles from the colorado river. 8 -- 100 miles versus one mile. high level huke march waste, especially with hanford where you have nuclear waste leaking outside the tanks. so then my response was where are the senators in these two states doing and what's their positio

mr. nugent, my friend cited to the letter, the authors being walter, robert, g.k. butterfield and john shimkus. we expressed ourselves -- i was not the author of the same. i would have and i do not deny any of its particulars, specifically the fact there should be flexible approaches to address the diversity of boiler operation, sectors in fuels that could prevent severe job loss. i would remind my friend that the measure that we were speaking of is under a stay and therefore the implementation of the provision will continue, i believe, to allow for the needed flexibility. and i think you referred, and i refer again to the portion of the joint bipartisan letter. as e.p.a. turns to developing a final boiler makt rule -- mind you this is of august of this year -- we hope you will carefully consider sustainable approaches that protect the environment and public health while fostering economic recovery and jobs within the bounds of the law. and that's precisely what i signed on to and stand by and i don't believe it's inconsistent with anything that my friend pointed out, nor did he suggest it wou