[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7631-S7636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I advised my colleagues, Senator Stevens and
Senator Inouye, that I have been very patient here, but I think it
would be to their interest if they went back to their offices and spent
the afternoon doing something more profitable. I am going to talk here
for as long as I am able to do so, which may take 4 or 5 hours. I may
get tired after that.
But I have been over here. I told my friends I would not object to
the defense appropriations bill being brought up, which I will not do.
But I have been listening to what has gone on here this afternoon, and
I think that we should talk about things that are important to talk
about.
I have had the good fortune, since I came to the Senate, to be able
to serve on the Appropriations Committee with my friend from Alaska,
the senior Senator from Alaska, and the senior Senator from Hawaii. I
have only the greatest respect for them and the work that they have
done all the time I have served with them on the Appropriations
Committee.
I think they have rendered great service to the country in the way
that they have handled the appropriations bills every year that I have
been on the committee. I am sure that will be the same this year. I am
sure when the appropriations bill comes up, that I will support that
appropriations bill. I am not on the subcommittee, but I have watched
with interest and sometimes in awe at the way they have handled the
bill.
But, Mr. President, there comes a time in the life of a Senator when
you have to talk about principle. Even though I have the deepest
respect for Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, I am going to have to
take a little time with my colleague, Senator Bryan, and talk about
what is happening to the State of Nevada.
We have heard some lectures here this afternoon about moving to
important things. We talked about something dealing with the Travelgate
and Billy Dale. I am sure that is important, and I think we should
spend some time debating that issue. I am willing to do that at the
right time.
Mr. President, we have a matter that we have been told is going to be
brought up, S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996, which is a
fancy name for putting, without any regulation or control or
safeguards, nuclear waste in Nevada. In effect, what they will do is
pour a cement pad and start dumping nuclear waste on top of the ground.
That is about it. We cannot allow that to happen without putting up a
fight.
I regret that the Senate has decided to take its limited and valuable
time
[[Page S7632]]
to consider this needless and reckless bill. That is what it is. It is
needless because the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, said
he is going to veto the bill. He said so in writing and he said so
publicly. The last time he said it publicly was in Las Vegas, NV. But
we are in some political season here where chits are being exchanged or
whatever.
Give me a reason why you would bring up a nuclear waste bill that the
President said he is going to veto when we have 12 appropriations bills
to do? According to an hour-long speech I have listened to here today,
we have Billy Dale we are concerned about. We have not done anything
with health care reform, and should do that sometime, should take a
couple days debating that.
Mr. President, we have more important issues that deserve our
attention. I wish we would spend a little time here debating organ
transplantation. I wish we would take a day here and tell the American
public how important that is. The Chair understands how important it
is. I was in the House of Representatives, served on the Science and
Technology Committee. Al Gore, now the Vice President of the United
States, was a Member of the House from Tennessee, and he was chairman
of the subcommittee called Investigations and Oversight.
We held a hearing that lasted several days on organ transplantation.
I will never forget as long as I live a little girl by the name of
Jamie Fiske, a girl that came to see us. She was yellow. Her color was
so bad because she needed a liver. As a result of the publicity from
that hearing, Jamie Fiske was a lucky little girl. She got a new liver.
As a result of that, her color changed. She became a healthy little
girl.
We have not traveled that far since those hearings 12 years ago. I
would like to be here debating what this body can do about organ
transplantation. We do not have to spend the fortunes of the United
States to do that. We just have to make it easier for people to do
that.
I carry in my wallet, Mr. President, in case something happens to me,
attached to the back of my driver's license, an organ donor card, it
reads, ``Pursuant to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, I hereby give,
effective on my death, any needed organs, tissues, eyes, parts for
medical research.'' And, Mr. President, they can have anything they
want.
I wish we would spend a little time talking about that, rather than a
bill that is going nowhere except take up time here and embarrass the
Senators from Nevada and take up our time and that of the President.
There will have to be a conference if, in fact, it passes.
S. 1936 is being offered as a replacement for the 1982 Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, as amended. The 1982 act says that the State that gets the
permanent repository is not going to jump with joy, but the thought was
we will go through some scientific observations and experimentations
and determine if it is safe to have a permanent repository in a State.
In 1986, the law was changed where previously we were going to have
three sites that would be chosen; the first site, second site, and
third site. The President would be able to observe these three sites,
and when it came time to put nuclear waste in one of these containment
areas, he would choose between the three. It would not be as political.
If one proved not to be scientifically proper, he would still have two
others.
In 1986, for a lot of reasons, most of which were political--everyone
acknowledges that now--two sites were eliminated. Texas was eliminated
and the State of Washington was eliminated. Nevada now is the State.
The law said--and was not changed in 1986--it said you cannot have the
permanent repository and the temporary repository in the same State. It
seems fair. But what this bill is going to do is take away what limited
fairness we have. It is going to say you can put them both in Nevada.
It is a replacement. S. 1936 is a replacement that guts the existing
law of its environmental and safety provisions and forces the
Government to take responsibility for the waste and liabilities of the
nuclear power industry.
Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will yield to the Senator for a question, with the
understanding that it would not violate the two-speech rule and when
the Senator's question is asked and answered I would retain the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BRYAN. As I understand what the Senator is indicating, in the
1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we would have an attempt to find a
suitable location, we would canvass America. We would look for the best
location, wherever it would be, whether the formation would be granite
in the Northeast or the salt dome formations in the South, or whether
it would be tuff in Nevada, and that after that search was made, that
there would be three sites that would be studied and referred to the
President of the United States, and that one of those sites would
ultimately be chosen.
If I understand what the Senator from Nevada is saying, that the
1986, 1987 changes to the law in effect said no longer do we search the
country for the best site. Forget those criteria. We will just study,
in terms of a permanent repository, the State of Nevada, and that at
that time we had some assurance and some protection in the sense of
equity or fairness that a State could not be studied for a permanent
site, as I understood the Senator to say, that No. 1, you could not
locate a temporary facility until after the permanent site was sited,
and that, second, a State could not be both a permanent and a temporary
site. I believe that is what I understood the Senator to say. The
Senator can perhaps enlighten me if I misstated that case.
Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right. No one in this world who
knows the nuclear waste issue has worked harder on the issue for the
people of the State of Nevada in this country than the former Governor
of Nevada and the present junior Senator from Nevada. He is a wealth of
wisdom and knowledge on this issue, and he understands as much, if not
more, than anyone else how the State of Nevada has been put upon.
Now, we do not like it, but we have accepted the characterization of
going forward with the permanent repository. There is a tunnel, Mr.
President, that is in that mountain, as large as this room and 2 miles
deep, right into the side of a mountain, dug with a machine like a
large auger. Now, we do not like it, but they are doing it. It is being
done scientifically.
Now, I do not especially like how the DOE has conducted itself, but
the truth of the matter is the Department of Energy has gotten all
kinds of mixed signals from the Congress. We cannot blame it all on
them.
As it will be developed during my remarks here this evening, Mr.
President, you cannot fix important problems when you do not give
individuals, organizations, and institutions enough time to fix them.
This proposal in S. 1936 is corporate welfare at its worst. It will
needlessly expose people across the America--not Nevada, but across
America--to the risk of nuclear accidents, I say in the plural. It is a
replacement that guts existing law of its environmental and safety
provisions and forces the Government to take responsibility for the
waste and liability of the nuclear power industry.
Now, we are trying to get Government out of things. But not here; we
are putting Government back in things. The existing Nuclear Waste
Policy Act need not be changed or replaced.
As I have indicated, Mr. President, we do not like the permanent
repository going forward in Nevada, but it is going forward. But not
fast enough for the corporate giants. They want it to happen yesterday.
They want it to happen without adequate safety, environmental, and
science checks. Let it go forward and do not short-circuit it with this
interim storage fiasco.
The present law is providing an adequate framework for the current
program plan. It is being implemented by the Department of Energy to
provide for the long-term disposition of nuclear waste.
Mr. President, as I have indicated, progress is being made on the
scientific investigation of a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain.
The exploratory tunnel is already, as I indicated, miles into the
mountain.
[[Page S7633]]
Our Nation's nuclear powerplants are operating and have the
capability to manage their spent fuel for many decades. There is no
emergency, and there will be no interim storage problem for decades.
The current law has health, safety, and environmental safeguards to
protect our citizenry from the risks involved in moving and disposing
of a high-level nuclear waste. S. 1936 would effectively end the work
on a permanent repository and abandon the health, safety, and
environmental protection the citizens of Nevada and this country
deserve.
Mr. President, as we talk about this today, we are going to find it
is not only Nevada citizens that should be concerned, but they are
going to be transporting tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste
across this country. They are going to be transporting the most
poisonous substance known to man. How are they going to transport it?
On trucks and railroad cars.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I yield as long as there is an agreement it would not
violate the two-speech rule, and that I would retain the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I have been following this issue with some interest and
note the strong interest of the Senator and his colleague, Senator
Bryan, with respect to this issue. Obviously, you have a very strong
State interest.
I have been attempting to understand the full dimensions of this
controversy. I notice on my schedule that I have individuals from the
utility in my region coming in to see me tomorrow or the day thereafter
with respect to this question. I wanted to have the opportunity to be
able to ask a few questions in preparation for that meeting, if you do
not mind.
The issue, as I understand it, is the question of an immediate
storage capacity, and the question of whether or not you take the steps
now to have that capacity located in the State of Nevada. Is that
basically the question before the Senate?
Mr. REID. Yes, that is absolutely the case. I say to my friend from
North Dakota, I have only been to North Dakota once in my life. That
was to meet with a number of people in North Dakota. Some of the people
with whom I met were people from the power industry. I was very
impressed with the State of North Dakota and how it helped supply power
for much more than the State of North Dakota. It was quite impressive,
to be quite frank.
I say to my friend from North Dakota, and I hope he would convey this
to the people that he is going to meet with tomorrow, having said that,
I have been to North Dakota, been to Beulah. Right outside Beulah, they
have this large power-generating facility. We in Nevada are not happy
that they are putting the permanent repository there. They are
characterizing it. But we have come to accept that. It is going
forward. They are characterizing it.
What I say to the people from the power interests that are coming to
see the Senator, why do they not let that move ahead, move ahead the
way it is scheduled, not try to rush things? That is what has messed up
this whole program. Everyone is trying to put science behind time
schedules. You cannot do that.
As I have indicated, they have a hole as large as this room, 2 miles
into the side of the mountain. They moved a great way in making
progress, but let me ask my friend from North Dakota to explain to
those people that they are going to ruin everything that they have
worked for by trying to short-circuit this.
The President of the United States, who has no dog in this fight,
said he will veto this bill. This is unfair to do it to a State, any
State, but particularly Nevada, because we have the permanent
repository.
Also, with the permanent repository, there are certain scientific
guidelines that have been established. I say to my friend from North
Dakota, let me show my friend what this bill does. Radiation exposure
under this bill, anything you look at in millirems per year, are real
low. Safe drinking water is way down here at 4; low-level nuclear
waste, 25; also EPA and independent spent nuclear fuel storage--until
we get to interim storage--100 millirems per year, four times what
anybody else is asked to bear.
Mr. CONRAD. Can I ask the Senator if there are any scientific bases
for that 100-millirem provision in this equation?
Mr. REID. I make a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. President, when the Senator from Nevada is asked a question, is
it necessary, as I already have received unanimous consent on one
occasion, that I would not violate the two-speech rule by answering the
question, and I retain the floor following the question to be answered?
Do I need to repeat that each time that a question is asked?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). That request is not necessary
so long as you yield only for the question.
Mr. REID. As long as I yield only for a question.
Mr. CONRAD. I stipulate for the Record that I would like to engage
the Senator from Nevada in a series of questions and responses, and we
would stipulate that they would yield a response to questions. Is that
appropriate, so that we do not have any question that these are
questions that are being posed by the Senator from North Dakota to the
Senator from Nevada?
I ask unanimous consent that we just have an understanding that these
be all understood to be questions posed by the Senator from North
Dakota to the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
So long as they are questions, without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. As I indicated before, I am going to
have this meeting, and I want to be certain that I understand this
issue very well before I have that meeting. I want to thank my
colleague from Nevada for indulging the Senator from North Dakota so I
can get these questions answered.
Is there any scientific basis to this 100-millirem level that is
provided for in this legislation?
Mr. REID. Absolutely none. There has been no evidence produced at
hearings that this is adequate. There have been no scientific documents
submitted. Everything is quite to the contrary. But I do not know
anyone in the scientific community that would ever suggest that.
Mr. CONRAD. So we do not have anything from the National Academy of
Sciences, for example, or anything from the National Institutes of
Health? We do not have anything from any of the relevant agencies or
departments that would say to us that this 100-millirem standard is one
that meets some scientific test; is that correct?
Mr. REID. Absolutely true. During the time that the Senator was
asking the question, I wanted to make sure that I was confident that
the answer was correct. So I leaned over my shoulder to my colleague
from Nevada, and he nodded that I was absolutely right. I have never
seen anything to suggest that 100 millirems is appropriate in any way.
Mr. CONRAD. If I might further inquire, do either of the Senators
from Nevada--the Senator who currently has the floor--know what would
the cost be of this interim storage facility?
Mr. REID. This is interesting. Each site--and we have a little over
100 nuclear waste generating facilities in the United States--it would
cost about $6 million per site to store nuclear waste where it now
exists.
Mr. CONRAD. That would be a dry cask storage?
Mr. REID. Yes. Now, the dry cask storage container would cost--in
addition to making that acceptable for temporary storage, but as I will
develop during my remarks, you do not have the transportation problems.
I also say to my friend that the National Academy of Sciences
recommends for this 10 to 30 millirems, which is right here on the
chart.
Mr. CONRAD. They have made a specific recommendation with respect to
the potential risk, and they have asserted that a 10- to 30-millirem
standard is appropriate. But this legislation has a 100-millirem
standard; is that right?
Mr. REID. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. The
answer is still the same. Nobody ever suggested that 100 is
appropriate. The National Academy of Sciences has suggested 10 to 30
millirems.
[[Page S7634]]
Mr. CONRAD. Again, I would like to go back to the question of cost,
if I could, because I think that is an important consideration in
anything we do around here to anybody who appreciates, as the Senator
from Nevada does, the intense budget pressure that we are under. The
first question I always ask my staff on any legislation that is brought
to me is, ``What does it cost?'' Could the Senator from Nevada tell me
what the estimated cost is of this temporary storage facility?
Mr. REID. I am happy to. The operating cost for on-site dry cask
storage amounts to about $1 million per year per site. It is $6 million
to establish it and, after that, $1 million per year.
Mr. CONRAD. So that would be the sites that would be at some 100
locations where we have nuclear power facilities around the country; is
that correct?
Mr. REID. Yes, in cooling ponds. Some of them are saying, ` `We are
getting to capacity, so what should we do?'' What we and the scientists
say is, ``If you want to leave it on-site, you can establish a site for
dry cask storage containment for $6 million, and after you get it in
the cask, it will cost $1 million a year to keep an eye on it.''
Mr. CONRAD. Then the question is, what is the alternative? If we go
to a temporary storage in the State of Nevada, what would the cost of
that approach be? Do you have an estimate of that?
Mr. REID. We do not have an estimate. The reason is that the cost of
transportation is significant. We have here another chart. This is a
sign of nuclear--do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
Mr. REID. If we eliminate those, we have to transport these, probably
now about 50-some-odd thousand metric tons of nuclear waste. This is
how we would transport it. The cost is very significant, because what
they have decided is that they would have to move most of it by rail.
But to get it to rail, they have to go by trucks to get it to some of
the rail sites. My staff just tells me that the information we have
been given is that the interim site would cost $1.3 billion, plus the
transportation.
Mr. CONRAD. It would cost $1.3 billion for the interim site itself?
Mr. REID. That is right, plus transportation.
Mr. CONRAD. The transportation would be in addition. So it would cost
$1.3 billion, and the alternative, as you have outlined, would be $6
million per site, plus $1 million a year.
Mr. REID. That is right.
Mr. CONRAD. Well, do we have any estimate of once you have
established this site--which would cost $1.3 billion initially, and
have on top of that the transportation cost--what the annual operating
cost of that facility would be?
Mr. REID. It would be around $30 million a year.
Mr. CONRAD. About $30 million a year. We are talking about,
obviously, a very substantial expenditure. Is this an expenditure by
the Federal Government, out of the Federal coffers, the $1.3 billion?
Mr. REID. Yes, because they have asked the Federal Government to take
over the project. Up to this time, much of the expense has been borne
by ratepayers at so much per kilowatt per electricity into this fund.
The fund has been used to repair the nuclear repository. I tell the
Senator some interesting statistics. This will make the people shudder,
and the Senator from North Dakota is one of our budget experts here, so
he probably will not shudder as much because he has gotten used to
things like this.
When the 1982 act passed, everyone was told that characterization
would cost about $200 million.
Mr. CONRAD. That is with an ``M,'' not a ``B''?
Mr. REID. That is right. But now the estimate is about $7 billion.
Mr. CONRAD. So it is loaded by a factor of 35.
Mr. REID. They were a little off. They are now approaching $3 billion
for what they have done at Yucca Mountain. I say, without placing all
the blame on the Department of Energy, a lot of it has been, I repeat,
trying to put time ahead of science. They get mixed signals to do this
and do that. It has made it an impossible situation. But its move
forward has been two steps forward and one step back. But they have
made tremendous progress in the deserts of Nevada to determine if Yucca
Mountain is scientifically proper for geological burial of nuclear
waste.
Mr. CONRAD. The question that I have is this. The Federal Government
is going to take on this expenditure, the $1.3 billion; is that
financed by the ratepayers, or does this come out of the Federal
Treasury, the $1.3 billion?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, that is a debatable issue. There are some
who say that the ratepayers should continue and it should not be
appropriated money of the United States. But there are others who are
saying we are going to sue you, the Federal Government, because you do
not have a place to put nuclear waste like you told us you would. So we
are going to sue you and make the Federal taxpayers pay for it because
the timeline for having a repository first in Washington, Texas, and
Nevada has slipped.
Mr. CONRAD. So what we may have here is another lawsuit, or series of
lawsuits, endless litigation no doubt with respect to the question of
who pays?
Mr. REID. Yes. I also say to my friend from North Dakota that there
are many who say that there is no problem the way things now stand. The
Nuclear Waste Technical Reviewing Board clearly stated:
The board sees no compelling technical or safety reason to
move spent fuel to a centralized storage facility for the
next few years.
This a statement they just made:
The methods now used to store spent fuel at reactor sites
are safe and will remain safe for decades to come.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me ask this question. We do not have any nuclear
facility in North Dakota. We have some customers in North Dakota who
are part of the NSP. NSP has a nuclear plant in Minnesota. So some of
our customers in North Dakota have been paying into a fund for some
period of time to handle their spent fuel. But as I am hearing the
Senator, we could have here a transfer of costs to other taxpayers in
North Dakota to take on what would be a Federal facility. In other
words, the taxpayers of North Dakota, most of whom have not been
benefited by nuclear power, would be asked to pay as Federal taxpayers
the Federal share of this facility that would be located in Nevada.
So would I be correct in assuming that North Dakota taxpayers would
be asked to take on this burden which has been created by an industry
that has been benefiting folks largely not in the State of North
Dakota?
Mr. REID. I believe that is absolutely true. I say also to my friend
that, first of all, everyone acknowledges that the Federal Government
should pay for defense wastes. And the nuclear waste fund--the money we
get from the ratepayers--is supposed to take care of the permanent
repository. But there are even some who say that is underfunded; that
the taxpayers will have to accept responsibility for that.
Finally, I respond to my friend that there is no reason for any of
this. I repeat for the third time here today. I do not like the
permanent repository in Nevada. It is unpopular. Any place Senator
Bryan or Senator Reid goes in the State of Nevada, the seventh-largest
State in America, any place we go, whether it is in Elko in northern
Nevada, in the far northeast, or Nelson, in the far south, wherever you
go the first thing people talk about is nuclear waste.
I am saying there is no need to have this problem. We do not like the
permanent repository. But there is no need to compound the problem, not
only for the people of Nevada but for the whole country.
I say to my friend from North Dakota, these are not figures that I
came up with. These are from the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Energy. These are 43 States at risk. This is where the
nuclear waste is going to have to go.
Mr. CONRAD. Is North Dakota on that list?
Mr. REID. North Dakota is not on that list.
Mr. CONRAD. I am relieved to find that out.
Mr. REID. You are one of the seven. You are very fortunate. But North
Dakota is located in the perimeter of this State. As we have learned,
North Dakota produces a lot of things. But one
[[Page S7635]]
thing it produces is very good students. We have heard Senator Moynihan
lecture about that. For whatever reason, people from North Dakota do
very well in school.
Mr. CONRAD. Do especially well in math, I might add.
Mr. REID. I know one Senator from North Dakota who does well in math.
But we have 43 States, and they are at risk because of the
truckloads--Arizona, 6,173 truckloads of nuclear waste; 783 trainloads
of nuclear waste.
We would go through the list. When you get to Missouri, it has almost
8,000 trainloads. This is unnecessary. We do not need to fill a single
truck or a single train with nuclear waste.
Do what the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board says: Leave it where
it is until we get the permanent repository, and then you move it once.
Mr. CONRAD. If I could just wrap up, I appreciate very much the
patience of my colleague. Tomorrow or the day thereafter when the
people from the utility in my region of the country--not directly from
North Dakota--come to see me, I presume that their key message will be,
``Senator, we have a problem developing because our pools are filling
with this waste, and we have to move it somewhere. We have to do
something with it.'' What would the Senator's answer be to those folks
if they presented him with that question?
Mr. REID. I would say that the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board,
which has no interest in this other than to do the right scientific
thing, says: ``The board sees no compelling technical or safety reason
to move the spent fuel to a centralized storage facility.''
Mr. CONRAD. Their judgment is that it ought to be left in the
locations where it is today, and to the extent that the ponds that are
the current repository are filling that they move those quantities to
dry cask storage.
Is that the essence of their recommendation?
Mr. REID. That is the statement of the Senator. I have read verbatim
what they have said. I feel very confident in stating that the board
knows--I am talking about the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board--
that of the more than 100 operating nuclear power reactors at 75 sites
in 34 States, 23 will require additional storage space probably before
the turn of the century. They are saying those 23, just leave them like
they are. They have seen them, studied them, do not worry about them.
The cooling ponds are fine. But if you have to move them to dry cask
storage then do that.
Mr. CONRAD. Then that would be their recommendation. In those places
where the ponds have reached their capacity, or about to reach their
capacity, those quantities be moved to dry cask storage on the spot,
not be transported to an interim facility, but wait for the long-term
repository.
Mr. REID. That is right.
Mr. CONRAD. If I could just finish by asking my colleague, what is
the schedule for the creation and development of a permanent
repository? Is that something that is anticipated to be done in 10
years or 20 years?
Mr. REID. We expect a final decision to be made probably in the year
2009.
Mr. CONRAD. That would be a decision made.
Mr. REID. Yes. But that is when they start moving. That is when they
declare the site scientifically safe.
Mr. CONRAD. At that point would it be operational?
Mr. REID. Yes. The dates slip a little bit.
Mr. CONRAD. Thirteen or fourteen years from now.
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Nevada for this chance to get
some of my questions answered. I appreciate very much the efforts that
he and his colleagues have put into this thing.
I must say I have rarely seen two colleagues more determined on an
issue than Senator Reid and Senator Bryan. I think it speaks volumes to
our colleagues. It speaks volumes to this Senator about the seriousness
with which they regard this issue; the time they have taken in our
caucus; the time they have taken on the floor; the time they have taken
individually to alert colleagues as to the critical nature of this
issue for their State.
If I resided in Nevada I would be very proud to have two Senators
like Senators Reid and Bryan representing me because one thing you
want, whoever you send here, when there is a time to fight for your
State that somebody is going to stand up and fight.
I must say I have not reached a conclusion on this issue. I have more
to learn. I want to hear from both sides before I reach a conclusion.
But if there are ever two men who are fighting for their State, I must
say it is Senators Reid and Bryan.
I would like to conclude by saying that I admire and respect the
effort that you are making on behalf of the citizens of Nevada.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the penetrating questions of the Senator from
North Dakota.
I only respond that I have been in this body as long as the Senator
from North Dakota. We came at the same time. I think it is important to
remind the people of America that the Senator from North Dakota, as far
as this Senator is concerned, speaks volumes of what integrity is all
about.
I will remind people--and I am sure it is embarrassing to the
Senator, but I will say it while he is on the floor--the Senator came
to Washington at the same time I came to the Senate, and he said that
he felt the No. 1 responsibility was to reduce the deficit. When the
deficit was not reduced as much as he thought it should be, he decided
not to run for office, and he did not.
I also say that the Senator has been very complimentary to the two
Senators from Nevada about the issue about which I address the Senate
today, but I say to the people of North Dakota, I have learned a great
deal in the 10 years I have served in the Senate with the Senator from
North Dakota, because in North Dakota anything dealing with agriculture
is a burning issue, and I have watched the Senator, since my colleague
has come to the Senate, devour the rest of the Senate on agricultural
issues. So I appreciate the nice remarks, but certainly it is mutual
admiration.
Mr. President, as I have spoken, we have a lot to do in this body. As
I indicated, my good friend from the neighbor State of Utah has spoken
about an issue, and he has spoken very fervently. The chairman of the
Judiciary Committee has stated that he feels we should do something
about the Billy Dale matter, attorney's fees and cost reimbursement.
I think there are some issues that we need to talk about. I would
like to talk about some of those issues. That is why I am talking here
today. We should be talking about issues that the President has said,
``I am not going to veto that.'' You heard the Senator from Utah; he
said that the President would accept a Billy Dale bill. He has said, on
the matter about which I speak, S. 1936, he will veto it. He has not
said it once. He said it many times.
You will note that Senator Dole did not bring up this matter. Why did
he not bring it up? I would think that he probably has a pretty good
idea about Presidential politics. I think he knows that in Nevada,
there are a lot of important issues, but there is nothing that is at
the top of people's lists like nuclear waste. He said he is going to
veto it. He has said it in Washington. He has said it in Nevada. And he
will veto it.
If there is anybody who believes that Clinton will not sweep the
State of Nevada if he vetoes this, they have got another think coming.
He carried the State 4 years ago. Right now, the polls show Clinton
ahead a little bit in Nevada. But if he vetoes this bill, he will be a
long ways ahead in Nevada. That is why Senator Dole did not bring it
up, because he knew that when November comes, this election is going to
be pretty close, even though Nevada is not a real populated State--we
now only have two congressional representatives--in the next census, we
will probably have three or four, but right now we only have two,
meaning we have four electoral votes, and that could make the
difference in this election. That is why Senator Dole did not bring up
this issue.
It is my understanding, Mr. President, that our colleague from
Indiana is present, and that he wishes to recess for a short time so
that he can introduce a parliamentary delegation.
I ask unanimous consent that I not lose any privileges of the floor,
that I retain the floor as soon as the 10-minute recess is ended, that
I lose no rights, privileges, or other matters
[[Page S7636]]
that may be at my disposal as a result of this brief 10-minute recess.
Is there agreement to that, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. I would therefore on those conditions yield to my
distinguished colleague from Indiana for the introductions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Indiana.
____________________