[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4888-S4889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NUCLEAR WASTE

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, there has been, as my colleague from North 
Dakota has pointed out, a number of disappointments in terms of things 
that have reached the floor, and with the overhang of Presidential 
politics in this year. One of the most disturbing things to me is the 
power of special interests at work in this Congress and their effort to 
bring a piece of legislation to the floor, S. 1271, which we are told 
will reach the floor sometime in the next few weeks. That is the effort 
of a powerful lobby, well financed, very effective, the nuclear power 
lobby, to bring a proposal to locate an interim storage of high-level 
nuclear waste in my State of Nevada.

  One can hardly open a newspaper or one of the many Capitol Hill 
newsletters these days without seeing one of the nuclear power 
industry's many misleading, and in my view, intellectually dishonest 
advertisements urging Members of this body, of this Congress, to 
support S. 1271, which is the latest nuclear power industry's piece of 
legislation.
  There are many things wrong with S. 1271, Mr. President. The obvious 
reason for my strong interest in the bill is an utter and complete 
disregard for the rights and interests of public health and safety of 
the men and women who I represent, my fellow Nevadans. Contrary to the 
wishes of the great majority of Nevadans--Democrats, Republicans, 
independents, those who choose no political affiliation--the 
overwhelming majority are strongly opposed to this so-called interim 
storage facility.
  The problems with this legislation are more than a question of 
unfairness, which I will have occasion to speak to at some length 
during the debate on this issue. It is much more than unfairness, 
because most of the mistruths that are being spread about this 
legislation in the nuclear waste program in general affect not only my 
own State but many other States, as well.
  First and foremost, I think it is important to emphasize that this 
piece of legislation is unnecessary. It is unnecessary. I have served 
in this body long enough to know that on many pieces of legislation, it 
is a very difficult balance. Some things that you like, some changes 
that you do not, there are some pluses and minuses. But always there 
should be at least some overriding necessity for that piece of 
legislation to be acted upon. In this instance, there is absolutely no 
need at all.
  The scientific experts, experts independent of the nuclear power 
industry, independent of the environmental community, independent and 
in no way connected with my fellow constituents in Nevada, have 
concluded that there simply is no problem with leaving the high-level 
nuclear waste where it currently resides, and that is at the reactor 
sites. Most recently, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a 
Federal agency created by the Congress for the sole purpose of 
monitoring and commenting on the high-level nuclear waste program, that 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board recently stated, ``There is no 
compelling technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to a 
centralized storage facility for the next few years.''

  Mr. President, that view has been endorsed by the Clinton 
administration as well because they can see through the transparency of 
the nuclear power industry's scare tactics. They have indicated that if 
this legislation should pass this Congress it will be vetoed.
  Let me say for those who have watched this issue over the years, 
scare tactics have become the kind of conduct that we expect from the 
industry. More than a decade ago we were told

[[Page S4889]]

that without some type of interim storage, then called away-from-
reactor storage, that nuclear reactors around America would have to 
close down. In fact, their prediction was by 1983, 13 years ago. Well, 
the Congress wisely rejected the overture by the nuclear power industry 
more than a decade ago, and not a single reactor has closed because of 
the absence of storage for the spent nuclear fuel rods.
  It is, in my judgment, a wiser policy and a more sensible policy that 
we make a determination only after we have a judgment as to the 
location of a permanent repository. That is what the language currently 
says, Mr. President, that there will be no decision to force a State or 
any jurisdiction to accept an interim storage until after the permanent 
repository program has made its own judgment. That, Mr. President, has 
not yet been done.
  This sensible approach, accepted by those who have independent 
judgment and are members of the scientific community, endorsed by this 
administration and by many others, does not satisfy the nuclear power 
industry. They are furious that their bluff has been called, that its 
scare tactics over the years have been sufficiently transparent, that 
most have been able to see through them, and they have been frustrated 
in their goal of establishing an interim storage facility.
  The risk that would be created by caving in to these special interest 
demands are substantial. In addition to creating overwhelming risk for 
those of us in Nevada, particularly because of its geographical 
proximity to the metropolitan area of Las Vegas, which is now home to 1 
million people, this legislation would result in over 16,000 shipments 
of dangerous high-level nuclear waste to 43 States.
  Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues and staff who are 
watching this issue and I apologize to America that we do not have the 
resources to have full-page ads in major newspapers across America and 
all of the various bulletins and pieces of literature issued covering 
and commenting on the operation of the Congress. I see the very able 
and distinguished Senator from Kansas, and I assure her I will not be 
long in my comments. I take the occasion to make her aware, as I do the 
distinguished occupant of the chair, we are talking about 43 different 
States that will be affected, 16,000 shipments. Much of that is located 
in the Midwest. The State of Kansas, if I might cite for my colleague's 
edification since she is on the floor, is a major transshipment 
corridor. The red indicates highway. The blue indicates rail. We have 
one, two, three, four major shipment routes to the State of Kansas, 
exposing communities--we will talk more about this when this issue 
comes to the floor--exposing communities to a great deal of risk if 
indeed an accident happens.
  We all hope that an accident does not happen. But most pencils in 
America are still made with an eraser. Mistakes occur--human error. We 
know that. Whether it is Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, or whatever the 
nuclear disasters have been in recent years, there are human failures, 
mistakes, neglect, all of those things, and they are not likely to 
change as a result of anything that we have done or are likely to do on 
the floor of the Senate.
  I know that the chairman of the Energy Committee spoke yesterday at 
some length about that. I can understand why he does not share the 
concerns. Alaska is not a transshipment corridor, so that none of his 
constituents would be exposed to the risk, as 43 States and some 50 
million of us that live along one of these transportation routes might 
be affected.
  I might say--and I believe the occupant of the chair served at the 
municipal level of government--there is no assurance in this 
legislation that any financial assistance is provided to communities 
who are placed at risk. None. No assurance whatsoever. So these 
communities exposed to this risk will have to bear that responsibility 
on their own.
  Let me just say that for some of us--and the occupant of the chair 
and I are from two States that have no nuclear reactors at all; yet, we 
will bear the burden of those transshipments--all unnecessary, all 
unnecessary because our States will be affected. In the great State of 
Oklahoma, there are at least three rail shipment routes that will pass 
through that great State. I can cite State after State, and I will have 
occasion to do so later.
  The chairman of the Energy Committee, in addressing this yesterday, 
tended to dismiss any concerns about safety. ``Nothing to worry about. 
This is all under control.'' Mr. President, I have said many times on 
the floor that I was in the eighth grade in early 1951 when the first 
nuclear atmospheric test was conducted at Frenchman Flats in Nevada, 
about 60 to 70 miles from my hometown of Las Vegas. We were assured at 
the time, ``There are no risks. There is nothing to worry about. The 
scientific community has this under control.'' Indeed, people were 
invited to go up to observe this great scientific phenomenon. Benches 
were established so you could go up, if you were part of the press 
corps. Those of us who were in school, as part of science programs, 
were invited to rise early in the morning and see the great flash from 
the nuclear detonation, see the cloud, and wait for the seismic shock 
to hit us, and calculate with some precision how far from ground zero 
we were from the place where the shot took place. Community 
reaction was overwhelming. Stores, retail establishments, all embraced 
this new nuclear phenomenon.

  Well, it is now 45 years later. Nobody buys that argument anymore. No 
scientist worthy of his or her degree would ever suggest with absolute 
certainty that we can detonate a nuclear blast in a 70-mile range of a 
major community. Nobody will assert that.
  Do you know what the consequences of that trust us is? Today, every 
Member of this Congress, every taxpayer in America is paying for those 
poor, innocent victims downwind of where those atmospheric shots 
occurred, who suffer from cancer and other genetic effects as a result 
of those experiments. Trust us, you need not worry. We are talking 
about something that is lethal. And those of us who would bear the 
burden of this do not have the same sense of safety and assurance that 
the chairman of the Energy Committee has.
  Mr. President, I know that this debate has been framed largely as a 
result of the special interests of the nuclear power lobby. Many of my 
colleagues, I am sure, have not heard from their constituents. Today, I 
take the opportunity to acquaint Americans and my colleagues and staff, 
who are watching our discussion, that this is not just a Nevada issue. 
Obviously, we feel powerfully aggrieved at this outrageous conduct that 
suggests that not only are we to be studied for a permanent repository, 
but an interim facility will be placed there as well.
  My point is that ours is a lonely voice, a small State of 1.6 million 
people and 4 Members of Congress. We cannot match the nuclear power 
industries' finances, the phalanx of lobbyists that they have from one 
end of Capitol Hill to the other. But there is much at risk. It is not 
just Nevada; it is 43 States, 50 million people. I urge my colleagues 
to get engaged in this debate and understand what is at risk.
  I thank the Chair and the Senator from Kansas for allowing me to 
extend my remarks.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________