[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.

                          ____________________