Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for a period of time not to exceed 8 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. Let me preface my comments by thanking the senior Senator from Georgia. I am delighted to have a chance to be down here today to talk on an issue. And his willingness to accommodate me is something I appreciate very much.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, Senators Enzi, Reid and I are today introducing legislation to stop the Interior Department from moving forward with regulations that in my view trample on States rights and invade the province of Governors and State legislators to determine what kinds of gaming activities will occur in their States. This proposed regulation flies in the face of the intent of Congress. I must say I am disappointed we are forced to take this step and would hope that the Secretary of the Interior would reconsider his ill- advised action. Last week the Secretary of Interior proposed rules that would allow the Interior Department to be the sole arbiter in the compacting process as to what kinds of gaming activities can be conducted on Native American lands. This is being done over the strong objections of the Nation's Governors and the Nation's Attorneys General, as well as the intent of Congress. I believe that in so doing, the Secretary is overstepping his authority and is making a grave mistake. In what I consider particularly convoluted logic, the Department has asserted that because the courts have struck down certain provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, referred to as IGRA, that they can step in and decide on their own what gaming activities States must allow tribes to engage in. I think by way of background, Mr. President, it may be helpful to share with my colleagues the basis of the underlying legislation as it relates to Native American gaming activities. In 1988, the Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and in so doing, tribal gaming activities were and are divided into three categories, with class I being reserved as traditional Indian games, class II being bingo-type games, and class III being casino-type games. Now, with respect to class III gaming, under the law, States and tribal governments negotiate a compact as to what type of games are to be permitted, if any, within class III. Under recent court decisions, Governors are required to negotiate with tribes only on gaming activity that is permitted by law in that State. For instance, Hawaii and Utah prohibit all forms of gaming, and therefore their respective Governors are not required to negotiate with tribes for any types of gaming activity. In Nevada, where we permit all forms of casino gaming, that is class III gaming, the State is required to enter into a compact with tribes allowing them to engage in all forms of gaming, and indeed without conflict or controversy five such compacts have been entered into. The Secretary has chosen, however, to put his own legal interpretation of what types of gaming activities must be put on the negotiating table. This so-called ``scope of gaming'' issue was fought out in the courts and decided in favor of Governors in the Rumsey case. The Rumsey case held that Governors are not forced to negotiate other gaming activities that are not permitted in the State in general. The Secretary appears to be trying to circumvent this decision and would force States, for example, that would allow a lottery and require them to negotiate with Indian tribes to make slot machines available, even though slot machines are illegal in that State. Given this clearly skewed legal interpretation, it seems to me that the Governors' fears are well-founded. The Department holds the position of fiduciary and trust obligation to the tribes and is an acknowledged advocate for tribal interests. The Department is taking the position that it should be the sole arbiter between the interest of the State and tribes in negotiating what form and scope of gaming should be permitted when it clearly has a bias in favor of one of the parties. It is no wonder the Governors said in their December 5 letter to President Clinton that they will actively oppose any independent assertion by the Secretary of his power to authorize tribal governments to operate class III gaming. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the December 5, 1997, letter addressed to the President by the Western Governors' Association, signed by its chairman, Governor Knowles of Alaska, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN. The Governors have repeatedly called the Secretary's proposal an inappropriate expansion of his authorities. Governors of the State in the process of negotiating a gaming compact with tribes will be severely disadvantaged by this proposal. Tribes will be much better off letting the Secretary of the Interior decide their fate-- believing they can get a better deal from a person who is an acknowledged advocate for their interests and indeed encourages gaming as a means of generating tribal revenues. The Department asserts the States must be acting in bad faith for the Secretary to strip the States of their rights. Of course, the Secretary is the judge and jury over whether the States, in fact, are negotiating in bad faith. To make matters even worse and to heighten the concerns the Governors have, the Department has informed us that they would consider the actions of Governor Wilson of California to be negotiating in bad faith because he refuses to negotiate with any tribe that persists in operating illegal games on tribal reservations. As Governor Wilson has indicated, he has a simple rule: If it is legal under State law, all can do it; if it is not legal under State law, no one can do it. The Governor wants the tribes to cease and desist illegal gaming activities before he will negotiate a compact or legal game, and the Interior Department would consider that bad faith. Now, that situation is not peculiar to California alone. Let me cite an example, if I may, Mr. President, in a letter addressed to the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, July 1, 1996, on behalf of the National Governors' Association. I quote a single paragraph from that letter. It arises out of the situation that occurred in the State of Florida. The factual situation underlying the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Seminole is an example of typical tribal-State conflict over IGRA implementation. Florida refused to negotiate with the Seminole Tribe over the operation of slot machines. Slot machines are prohibited by Florida law, and state voters have rejected three referenda to legalize such devices, as well as other casino-style games. The state's public policy and the preference of Florida citizens with respect to this type of gambling activity could not be clearer. Yet the Seminole Tribe proceeded to take the state to court on the grounds that Florida had failed to negotiate in good faith, even though the state was merely negotiating within the limits of state law and state public policy on gambling. Again, under the proposed regulation, the Interior Department would interpret the Florida situation as being one of bad faith and therefore the Interior Department could step in--in effect, supersede the negotiations and the position taken by Florida's Governor in response to voter preference and public policy in the State of Florida--and to negotiate a compact that could conceivably allow a full range of casino gaming activity contrary to the public policy of that State. Mr. President, I am personally offended that the Department has chosen to proceed with rulemaking in clear violation of the intent of Congress. Members will recall that Senator Enzi and I attached language to the Interior appropriations bill which imposes a moratorium on the Department implementing such a rule. The language reads: ``During fiscal year 1998, the Secretary may not expend any funds made available under this act to review or approve any initial tribal-State compact for class III gaming entered into on or after the day of the enactment of this act, except for a compact which has been approved in accordance with IGRA and State law.'' That contemplates the negotiating process between Governors and the tribal governments, as I indicated previously. Nevertheless, the Department has chosen to ignore our intent and to proceed with putting this process in place, which Congress has clearly said it doesn't want. Since the Department has chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress, we are forced to stop this power grab once again through the legislative process. I might note over 100 compacts between States and tribes for class III gaming have been successfully negotiated. As I pointed out previously, five of those compacts are in place in Nevada. In only a handful of States has the compacting process failed. I believe the failure can be attributed to the unwillingness of Federal prosecutors to close down illegal tribal gaming operations. Tribes running illegal operations have no incentive to reach an agreement with States as long as they face no consequences for their illegal gaming activities. In California alone, tribes are operating 14,000 illegal slot machines. It is not clear to me why the Secretary of Interior feels the need to stack the deck even further against the interests of those States who do not favor, as a matter of public policy, slot machines in their States. So, Mr. President, I hope that the Secretary will reconsider this ill-advised proposal. If not, we will work with the Nation's Governors and Nation's attorneys general on this legislation to block the emasculation of States' rights. This bill is introduced by myself, Senator Enzi, and Senator Reid.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, Senators Enzi, Reid and I are today introducing legislation to stop the Interior Department from moving forward with regulations that in my view trample on States rights and invade the province of Governors and State legislators to determine what kinds of gaming activities will occur in their States. This proposed regulation flies in the face of the intent of Congress. I must say I am disappointed we are forced to take this step and would hope that the Secretary of the Interior would reconsider his ill- advised action. Last week the Secretary of Interior proposed rules that would allow the Interior Department to be the sole arbiter in the compacting process as to what kinds of gaming activities can be conducted on Native American lands. This is being done over the strong objections of the Nation's Governors and the Nation's Attorneys General, as well as the intent of Congress. I believe that in so doing, the Secretary is overstepping his authority and is making a grave mistake. In what I consider particularly convoluted logic, the Department has asserted that because the courts have struck down certain provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, referred to as IGRA, that they can step in and decide on their own what gaming activities States must allow tribes to engage in. I think by way of background, Mr. President, it may be helpful to share with my colleagues the basis of the underlying legislation as it relates to Native American gaming activities. In 1988, the Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and in so doing, tribal gaming activities were and are divided into three categories, with class I being reserved as traditional Indian games, class II being bingo-type games, and class III being casino-type games. Now, with respect to class III gaming, under the law, States and tribal governments negotiate a compact as to what type of games are to be permitted, if any, within class III. Under recent court decisions, Governors are required to negotiate with tribes only on gaming activity that is permitted by law in that State. For instance, Hawaii and Utah prohibit all forms of gaming, and therefore their respective Governors are not required to negotiate with tribes for any types of gaming activity. In Nevada, where we permit all forms of casino gaming, that is class III gaming, the State is required to enter into a compact with tribes allowing them to engage in all forms of gaming, and indeed without conflict or controversy five such compacts have been entered into. The Secretary has chosen, however, to put his own legal interpretation of what types of gaming activities must be put on the negotiating table. This so-called ``scope of gaming'' issue was fought out in the courts and decided in favor of Governors in the Rumsey case. The Rumsey case held that Governors are not forced to negotiate other gaming activities that are not permitted in the State in general. The Secretary appears to be trying to circumvent this decision and would force States, for example, that would allow a lottery and require them to negotiate with Indian tribes to make slot machines available, even though slot machines are illegal in that State. Given this clearly skewed legal interpretation, it seems to me that the Governors' fears are well-founded. The Department holds the position of fiduciary and trust obligation to the tribes and is an acknowledged advocate for tribal interests. The Department is taking the position that it should be the sole arbiter between the interest of the State and tribes in negotiating what form and scope of gaming should be permitted when it clearly has a bias in favor of one of the parties. It is no wonder the Governors said in their December 5 letter to President Clinton that they will actively oppose any independent assertion by the Secretary of his power to authorize tribal governments to operate class III gaming. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the December 5, 1997, letter addressed to the President by the Western Governors' Association, signed by its chairman, Governor Knowles of Alaska, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN. The Governors have repeatedly called the Secretary's proposal an inappropriate expansion of his authorities. Governors of the State in the process of negotiating a gaming compact with tribes will be severely disadvantaged by this proposal. Tribes will be much better off letting the Secretary of the Interior decide their fate-- believing they can get a better deal from a person who is an acknowledged advocate for their interests and indeed encourages gaming as a means of generating tribal revenues. The Department asserts the States must be acting in bad faith for the Secretary to strip the States of their rights. Of course, the Secretary is the judge and jury over whether the States, in fact, are negotiating in bad faith. To make matters even worse and to heighten the concerns the Governors have, the Department has informed us that they would consider the actions of Governor Wilson of California to be negotiating in bad faith because he refuses to negotiate with any tribe that persists in operating illegal games on tribal reservations. As Governor Wilson has indicated, he has a simple rule: If it is legal under State law, all can do it; if it is not legal under State law, no one can do it. The Governor wants the tribes to cease and desist illegal gaming activities before he will negotiate a compact or legal game, and the Interior Department would consider that bad faith. Now, that situation is not peculiar to California alone. Let me cite an example, if I may, Mr. President, in a letter addressed to the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, July 1, 1996, on behalf of the National Governors' Association. I quote a single paragraph from that letter. It arises out of the situation that occurred in the State of Florida. The factual situation underlying the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Seminole is an example of typical tribal-State conflict over IGRA implementation. Florida refused to negotiate with the Seminole Tribe over the operation of slot machines. Slot machines are prohibited by Florida law, and state voters have rejected three referenda to legalize such devices, as well as other casino-style games. The state's public policy and the preference of Florida citizens with respect to this type of gambling activity could not be clearer. Yet the Seminole Tribe proceeded to take the state to court on the grounds that Florida had failed to negotiate in good faith, even though the state was merely negotiating within the limits of state law and state public policy on gambling. Again, under the proposed regulation, the Interior Department would interpret the Florida situation as being one of bad faith and therefore the Interior Department could step in--in effect, supersede the negotiations and the position taken by Florida's Governor in response to voter preference and public policy in the State of Florida--and to negotiate a compact that could conceivably allow a full range of casino gaming activity contrary to the public policy of that State. Mr. President, I am personally offended that the Department has chosen to proceed with rulemaking in clear violation of the intent of Congress. Members will recall that Senator Enzi and I attached language to the Interior appropriations bill which imposes a moratorium on the Department implementing such a rule. The language reads: ``During fiscal year 1998, the Secretary may not expend any funds made available under this act to review or approve any initial tribal-State compact for class III gaming entered into on or after the day of the enactment of this act, except for a compact which has been approved in accordance with IGRA and State law.'' That contemplates the negotiating process between Governors and the tribal governments, as I indicated previously. Nevertheless, the Department has chosen to ignore our intent and to proceed with putting this process in place, which Congress has clearly said it doesn't want. Since the Department has chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress, we are forced to stop this power grab once again through the legislative process. I might note over 100 compacts between States and tribes for class III gaming have been successfully negotiated. As I pointed out previously, five of those compacts are in place in Nevada. In only a handful of States has the compacting process failed. I believe the failure can be attributed to the unwillingness of Federal prosecutors to close down illegal tribal gaming operations. Tribes running illegal operations have no incentive to reach an agreement with States as long as they face no consequences for their illegal gaming activities. In California alone, tribes are operating 14,000 illegal slot machines. It is not clear to me why the Secretary of Interior feels the need to stack the deck even further against the interests of those States who do not favor, as a matter of public policy, slot machines in their States. So, Mr. President, I hope that the Secretary will reconsider this ill-advised proposal. If not, we will work with the Nation's Governors and Nation's attorneys general on this legislation to block the emasculation of States' rights. This bill is introduced by myself, Senator Enzi, and Senator Reid.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bryan pertaining to the introduction of S. 1572 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BRYAN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a period of time not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, under the rule, I would like to yield 1 hour that I have to the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business with the understanding that if the distinguished floor leader is prepared to move forward, I am prepared to yield the floor back to him for purposes of conducting his business.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair again.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, yesterday, in perhaps the most antienvironmental vote of the Congress, the House of Representatives passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Like the Senate bill that passed earlier this year, the House bill unfairly targets Nevada, a State with no nuclear reactors, as the final destination for 80,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste produced by the U.S. commercial nuclear utilities, most of which are located in the East. The central feature of the bill passed by the House yesterday, like the Senate bill, is the establishment of so-called interim storage of high-level commercial nuclear waste at the Nevada test site, about 80 miles north of the metropolitan Las Vegas area, an area that comprises some 1 million citizens. Like its Senate counterpart, the House bill tramples on decades of environmental policy, ignores public health and safety and exposes the American taxpayer to billions of dollars in cost to solve the private industry's waste problem. Fortunately, the President has indicated that he will veto either version of this misguided legislation. We have secured the votes in the Senate to sustain President Clinton's veto. While yesterday's House vote falls slightly short of the number required to sustain a veto in the House, we are still within striking distance of the required number, and I believe that in the end this bill has little or no chance of becoming law. As I have discussed many times here on the Senate floor, the nuclear power industry's legislation is nothing but corporate pork, plain and simple. It is a bailout for a dying industry at the expense of both the pocketbooks and the health and safety of the American public. Nevada, as the industry's chosen destination for its waste, has obvious objections to this legislation. But, Mr. President, other regions are also rightfully concerned with the potential impact on their citizens. Under this legislation, in just a few short years, 16,000 shipments of toxic, high-level nuclear waste will be transported by rail and highway through 43 States. More than 50 million Americans live within 1 mile of the proposed rail and truck routes. The bill requires the transportation of waste through many of our largest metropolitan centers and provides no assurance that funds will be available to provide training and equipment for emergency responders. Moreover, the bill makes a mockery of our Nation's environmental protection laws. It ignores the National Environmental Protection Act and would take precedence over nearly every local, State or Federal environmental statute or ordnance, including, among others, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and many more. It establishes radiation protection standards far lower than in any other Federal program and in complete contradiction to internationally accepted thresholds. The bill provides little or no public input or comment by affected communities or individuals and establishes a whole new set of unreachable deadlines, repeating the very mistakes Congress made in 1982 with the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act. All of this--the trampling of our environmental laws, the billions of dollars in subsidy to the nuclear power industry, and the grave threat to the health and safety of millions of Americans--is completely unnecessary. Nuclear utilities can and do store waste safely on site at reactors. In fact, the very same storage technology that the legislation contemplates using at the Nevada test site is currently used at reactor sites around the country, with many more sites soon to follow. No reactor in the United States has ever closed for lack of storage. Despite the scare tactics of the nuclear power industry, there is no storage crisis. Objective scientific experts agree that there is no storage crisis. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent oversight board created by the Congress, found in March of 1996, and repeated again this year, that there is no compelling technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to a centralized interim facility for the next few years. Nevertheless, the nuclear power industry has been relentless in its efforts to move its waste to Nevada as soon as humanly possible, no matter what the consequences. Mr. President, we will continue to do whatever we can to stop this legislation from passing. With a firm veto threat in place and without the votes to override the veto, I encourage the leadership of both the Senate and the House of Representatives to stop this exercise in futility. Stop wasting Congress' time on ill-founded legislation that stands little or no chance of being enacted. The American people deserve more from us than wasting our time on billion-dollar subsidies for an industry that has spent too long already at the public trough. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. There are a number of riders attached to this conference report which should be cause for concern by my colleagues. I am most troubled by the conferees' treatment of the Forest Service purchaser road credit program. During this body's consideration of the Interior appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to eliminate this environmentally destructive subsidy. It failed by a single vote. A similar amendment in the House also failed by a single vote. The purchaser road credit program allows the Forest Service to subsidize the road construction costs of timber companies by granting credits to them equal to the estimated cost of the roads they need to access their timber. Timber purchasers can then use the credit to pay for the timber being harvested. Last year these ``purchaser credits'' were valued at nearly $50 million. In the House-passed version of the Interior appropriations bill, a limit of $25 million was placed on the value of purchaser credits that may be offered by the Forest Service in fiscal year 1998. The conference report before us today eliminates this cap entirely. The Senate report accompanying the bill ``directs the Forest Service to continue the timber purchaser credit program without change'' and makes it clear that ``the committee has not specified the ceiling for the amount of purchaser credits that can be offered'' to timber companies. The result of this language is an open-ended subsidy for the timber industry. Mr. President, in spite of the conferees' decision to expand this subsidy, I intend to send a letter to the administration urging them to use their discretionary authority to abolish this wasteful and environmentally unsound program, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, we hear that opponents of McCain-Feingold have argued for the need to codify the Beck decision. Senators Feingold and McCain have done just that by including a provision that expressly codifies the Supreme Court decision. Now, however, there is an effort to seek a new amendment, a new provision. The pending amendment is clever. It indeed may rise to the level of being ingenious. But its sole purpose and function is to kill the cause of campaign finance reform. The majority leader himself was quoted in the Wall Street Journal in September this past month as saying: I set it up [referring to the amendment] so they will be filibustering me. This is a political tactic that is designed to thwart, to prevent campaign finance reform. It clearly indicates that this is not a serious debate about reforming our campaign laws. Perhaps the Washington Post editorial of October 1, 1997, sets the record in the proper context. And I quote: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, having magnanimously allowed campaign finance reform legislation to come to the floor, now proposes to kill it with an amendment affecting the use of labor union dues for political purposes. I regret that the amendment in that form was offered. I hope that some mechanism might be developed to permit us to pursue campaign finance reform and offer other amendments without this particular provision which has been variously characterized as a ``killer'' amendment or a ``poison pill'' amendment because I believe that its purpose is to effectively prevent campaign finance reform. Mark Twain once observed that ``Everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.'' The same could be said about the way we finance our campaigns for elective office. If there ever was a time to reform our political system, the time is now. Neither political party has benefited in terms of public opinion from our present campaign finance system. Overwhelmingly, 92 percent of the American people believe that our system desperately needs reform and the time for us to do it is now. If we let this opportunity slip away, I fear that real campaign finance reform may not be enacted. We need to ban soft money, and to stop the onslaught of negative ad attacks on political candidates. We need to level the playing field, and give challengers who want to run for Congress and to prove that their ideas have merit and represent a broad base of public support the opportunity to do so. Madam President, we need to restore public confidence in the American political system. And I believe that the McCain-Feingold revised measure represents our best hope for making these significant and needed changes prior to the next election. I yield the floor. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation offered by my colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I am pleased to join with all 44 of my Democratic colleagues, as well as Senators McCain, Thompson, Collins, and Specter. I hope during the course of this debate others will join us in this first step in campaign finance reform that we so desperately need. Campaign finance reform is an issue that deserves our full consideration and one that must be voted on this year, whatever time it takes. Mr. President, I would like to, at the outset, commend Senators Feingold and McCain for their thoughtful and careful bipartisan approach in crafting a piece of campaign finance reform that, although I believe it to be modest--more modest than I would have preferred-- nevertheless marks a beginning. The integrity of our political system is threatened by the tremendous amounts of money required to run for public office. The Members in this Chamber know it, political scholars know it, and the American people know it. Mr. President, I first sought elective public office in 1968 as a candidate for my State legislature. Then and now, some money was required in order to put together a campaign, to prepare the necessary kinds of materials, and to make sure the constituents that one sought to persuade knew what your message was. Over the intervening years, I have had occasion to run for State elective office on four different occasions and have had an opportunity to run for the U.S. Senate twice now. There is no question, from any perspective, any point of view, that the amount of money that is involved today in the American political system far exceeds, by any measure, any growth that may be attributed to inflation or any other reasonable consequence, including the growth of the population in my own State and generally across the country. There has been, during that intervening nearly 30 years since the time I have been involved in the elective political system, a marked decline in voter participation in this system. This is an alarming trend. It does not bode well for Democrats or Republicans or Independents, nor does it bode well for the future of democratic institutions. Mr. President, I believe that there is an absolute correlation between declining voter interest and the ever larger sums of money being raised to fuel the money chase. Nearly $2.7 billion was spent on campaigns in the last election cycle. Every year the expense of campaigning climbs higher and higher, and the pressure to seek financial support for those who seek public office intensifies accordingly. I know that some contend there is not enough money being spent in the American political system. I respectfully disagree with that opinion, and I believe that the great majority of the American public disagrees as well. A full 92 percent of Americans believe that too much money is spent on campaigns. The Wall Street Journal poll of December of last year reflects that number. Indeed, money has become a dominant factor in American politics as to who runs and who wins. As a consequence, our political system is on a downward spiral that will continue to spin out of control unless we have the courage to take the steps necessary to stop it. There is a sense of irony, Mr. President, that the institution that benefits the most from the current system is the only one that can reform it. But we must put the interest of country ahead of our own political success and ahead of party interests. The revised McCain-Feingold bill is, as I have said, a very modest proposal; nevertheless, it is a first step in reforming a campaign financing system that cries out for change. It just might begin to restore the people's trust in the ability of their elected officials to stop the hemorrhaging of the political system and to allow the healing process to begin. As I said, I would have preferred a more comprehensive approach, but that is not to be. However, this is an effort which may have a chance to attract more support and thus has a chance of becoming law. Senators Feingold and McCain have carefully reshaped their original bill as a compromise with the hope of attracting additional Republican votes, which will be needed for its passage. First, the McCain-Feingold legislation bans the use of so-called soft money by the national political parties from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. State parties would be banned from spending soft money on activities related to Federal elections. The creative expanded uses by both political parties of soft money has significantly increased the demand for campaign contributions. This past 1996 election year was the costliest ever in our Nation's history. Both parties raised overall $881 million for the election--a 73 percent increase over the amount of the preceding 4 years when the parties raised $508 million. In soft money alone, Democrat and Republican parties raised $263.5 million. That is nearly three times the amount that was raised in the preceding 4-year cycle. From 1988 to 1996, the amount of soft money raised by the parties has increased by nearly 600 percent. What needs to be done? The American people have been asked what they think needs to be done to reform the political process in this country. From the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey of June 1997 when that question was propounded, the American public is not confused. Perhaps some Members of Congress are confused, but the American public is not confused. Reduce the amount that candidates can accept from political action committees, impose overall spending limits on campaigns, eliminate large contributions to political parties, and provide some financial incentives to candidates. Sixty-two percent of the American people believe that is what ought to be done. Among the other options that were discussed were: Remove all limits on contributions so people can give as much money as they want, but require more timely disclosure of these donations. Some of our colleagues believe that we ought to be spending more money in running for public office. The American public disagrees overwhelmingly. Only 18 percent favor the removal of limits on contributions. Leave the current campaign financing system intact. Only 14 percent favor that course of action. Now, I understand that the debate and the argument is that campaign spending is a form of free speech and therefore cannot be regulated in any form. The American people, when asked that question, conclude that--18 percent of them--as a form of free speech, that cannot be regulated; and 74 percent believe campaign spending has nothing to do with free speech and that spending limits should be imposed. That data is also from the previously cited 1997 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey. Mr. President, I understand, having had occasion to practice law and having served as the attorney general of my State, that the constitutionality of an issue cannot be determined simply by a majority of public opinion at any one time. I certainly do not argue that to be the case because constitutional principles rise to a higher level than what a majority at any given point in time might favor. Nevertheless, during the course of debate on this and other legislation, critics of proposed legislation frequently invoke the contention that the legislation as drafted is unconstitutional. That debate has occurred in the context of this bill. The able and distinguished Senator from Kentucky has cited a number of constitutional scholars who weighed in in favor of the proposition that this legislation, in its attempt to limit soft money and other restrictions, is unconstitutional. On the other side of the constitutional divide, an equal body of distinguished scholars have weighed in on behalf of the proposition advocated by Senators Feingold and McCain and have asserted that these provisions are indeed constitutional. My point in mentioning this is that we in this Chamber are not going to be able to decide that issue. We will not be able to resolve it. That is not our function. The function of the legislative branch of the two Houses of Congress is to enact legislation and, indeed, if the legislation that we have enacted is in any way constitutionally flawed, the courts--ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States--will make that decision, and the courts have done so when they believe that we have overstepped the constitutional limits in imposing restrictions on our campaign financing system. Mr. President, we ought to allow the courts to make that determination and to move this legislation forward so that those who seek to challenge it have an opportunity to do so in the only meaningful forum in which this issue can be resolved on a constitutional basis, and that is in the judicial arena. Mr. President, unless we have the good sense to change the rules of the game, candidates and their political parties will continue to pursue the money chase and the amount of money involved in future campaigns will continue to grow rapidly. I frequently tell the constituents in my own State that this fatally flawed campaign system that is involved has locked good people into a bad system in which, almost from the moment of our election, it is impressed upon us that the next campaign, if we choose to run for reelection, will be more costly than the previous one, and our focus almost immediately is upon how much money will I have to raise each week that I serve, each month that I serve, if I choose to seek reelection. The amount of money has increased, as I have indicated, not just arithmetically based upon factors of inflation and the growth that is occurring in the populations of our respective States, but they have grown exponentially, and it might constitute the gravest threat to the integrity of the political system in America. This bill proposed by Senators McCain and Feingold would do several things. In addition to the ban on soft money, the bill places a restriction on issue ads by independent special interests. If a Federal candidate's name is mentioned in any broadcast television or radio communication within 60 days of an election, for example, then this candidate-related expenditure will be subject to Federal election law and must be disclosed and financed with so-called hard dollars. The Supreme Court has ruled that only communications that contain express advocacy of candidates are subject to Federal disclosure requirements and restrictions. This proposal would extend to include issue ads running 60 days prior to the election in which the individual candidate's name is mentioned in those ads. Third, the legislation increases disclosure requirements and requires the Federal Election Commission to make campaign finance records available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing. It requires political ads to carry a disclaimer identifying who is responsible for the content of the ad. Simply put, disclosure requirements would bring more accountability and responsibility to our political process. Fourth, the bill prohibits political parties from making coordinated expenditures on behalf of Senate candidates who do not agree to limit their personal spending to $50,000 per election. This provision, in my opinion, will help to level the playing field between wealthy candidates and those candidates who do not have deep financial pockets. Fifth, this bipartisan legislation prohibits anyone who is not a U.S. citizen from making financial contributions. Finally, and what has become a central focus of this issue in recent days, McCain-Feingold requires that labor unions notify nonunion members that they are entitled to have their agency fees reduced by an amount equal to the portion of the fees used for political purposes if they file an objection to the use of those fees--a so called opt-out system in which the member can notify the union that he or she does not want any union dues used to finance any part of the political campaign contribution system. Fair enough, it seems. The Supreme Court's 1988 Beck decision explicitly states that nonunion members in union shops may choose to pay reduced agency fees, and the McCain-Feingold bill simply codifies the Beck decision. (Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.)

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, earlier today the Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing on a report prepared by the National Cancer Institute regarding the health effects of fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950's and 1960's. Today, 35 years after the last atmospheric test, we are just beginning to get a clear picture of the effects of the radioactive fallout from these tests. While we should obviously continue to do everything we can to help the victims of these tests, I hope we can also learn something from our mistakes in the past. This August, the National Cancer Institute released the results of its nationwide study of radioactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950's and 1960's. In 1982, Congress directed the Department of Health and Human Services to develop methods to estimate radioactive iodine-131 exposure, to assess thyroid I-131 doses, and to assess risks for thyroid cancer from the exposures. Ninety atmospheric tests were conducted at the test site mainly in the years 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1957. All 48 contiguous States received some degree of exposure to radioactive iodine-131 fallout from these atmospheric nuclear bomb tests. Everyone in those States was exposed. Let me repeat that--everyone was exposed. People living hundreds of miles to the north and east of the Nevada Test Site in Montana, Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, and Colorado were exposed. Within these 5 States, 25 counties had particularly high fall-out exposure ranging from 12.0 to 9.0 rads. A ``rad'' is a radiation absorbed dose, which is the amount of radiation absorbed by the tissues in the body. The tragic conclusion of this study is that children, who lived in these high exposure areas, and who were aged between 3 months and 5 years at the time of the tests were at the greatest risk for iodine-131 exposure. Since children's thyroids are so small, their exposure was disproportionately higher than adults. Children who drank contaminated milk--particularly from cows maintained for family use--and which ate pasture vegetation, have an even greater exposure. The children in this age group exceeded the average per capita thyroid dose by a factor of about 3.7 following the tests because of their greater milk consumption and their smaller thyroids. After each of the 90 tests, people living in these States were exposed to varying levels of iodine-131--for about 2 months following each test. This means the air, milk, and other dairy products, eggs and leafy vegetables were all contaminated, and that contamination lingered for a significant period of time after each test. The National Cancer Institute has concluded from the limited data available on people who were exposed, as children, to iodine-131 from the nuclear tests' fallout that this exposure is linked to thyroid cancer. NCI estimates between 10,000 to 75,000 people who were exposed as children may develop fallout-associated thyroid cancer during their lifetime. Nearly all were under 15 years of age at the time of exposure, and 75 percent were under 5 years of age. NCI is currently working with scientists in Belarus and Ukraine to study thyroid cancer following the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. Thousands of children exposed to the accident's fallout received radiation doses to their thyroids. These doses ranged from comparatively small to 10 times higher than U.S. residents received from the Nevada tests in the 1950's and 1960's. There was a clear increase in thyroid cancer from the Chernobyl accident in this population. The wide range of radioactive fallout exposures to such a large number of people that resulted in an increase in thyroid cancer will be most helpful in assessing the impact of the Nevada tests on those exposed. Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers are studying the health effects of radioactive iodine released from the Hanford, WA nuclear weapons plant in the 1940's and 1950's. The Hanford study results are to be available in 1998. The Institute of Medicine [IOM] is currently also working with the Department of Health and Human Services to review the data from the National Cancer Institute's study to assess the risk to the exposed individuals. The IOM will also develop recommendations for physicians regarding how to treat people who might be at risk of disease because of their I- 131 exposure. These recommendations should be available within 6 to 9 months. What child growing up in the 1950's and early 1960's was not encouraged to drink as much milk as possible to build strong and healthy bodies? In the 1950's and 1960's, health experts advocated each youngster should consume four glasses of milk each day. No one in those years expected young children living hundreds of miles to the north and east of the Nevada Test Site drinking their milk were going to face a possible increase in thyroid cancer incidence. But that is the consequence being faced by those exposed. In addition, it is becoming increasingly clear that some of the scientists and engineers associated with atmospheric testing knew, or at least suspected, that there were health and safety consequences to the fallout. Some of the Government personnel working on the testing program actually sent their families away from the area during and immediately after tests to protect them from the fallout. A story reported yesterday in the New York Times is even worse, the Atomic Energy Commission apparently warned the Eastman Kodak Co. and other film companies of planned tests, so that the film companies could take steps to protect their film stocks from being damaged. Somehow, the AEC decided it was more important to protect photographic film, than the health and safety of tens of thousands of citizens who were exposed and who, today, we know will suffer thyroid and other genetic problems as a consequence of that exposure. The last atmospheric test took place 35 years ago, but signs of atmospheric testing are still present in many areas, including southern Nevada. Recently, in fact, scientists discovered the presence of radioactive contamination in dust in some attics in Las Vegas. Nevadans have had plenty of experience with the Department of Energy. During the cold war, we were proud to do our patriotic duty, and host the Nevada Test Site, the United States' major continental nuclear weapons testing facility. We were all very proud of our participation in what we expected to be an exciting new age, we thought we were at the center of a new technology that would dominate the 21st century. Of course, as these recent studies have shown pretty clearly, we were all completely ignorant of the tremendous dangers and costs of the nuclear age, and most of the captivating ideas of the 1950's never developed. In point of fact, nuclear power is on the decline. Nuclear plants close regularly, due either to serious safety related problems, or dismal economic performance. The legacy of the nuclear age, however, is still with us, the tens of thousands metric tons of commercial high-level nuclear waste, and an incomprehensible volume of defense related waste generated by the production of nuclear weapons. Over Nevada's vigorous objections, our State has been targeted as the final resting place for these dangerous, poisonous wastes. The Department of Energy, and the nuclear power industry, have spent millions of dollars attempting to convince Nevadans that they have nothing to fear, that this waste is perfectly safe, and poses no threat to our health and safety. Unfortunately, Nevadans have had enough experience with the Department of Energy and its scientists to hold a certain amount of skepticism regarding these claims. The report being reviewed by the committee today is yet another confirmation that the Department has historically cultivated a culture where concerns for public health and safety are subsumed to the pressure to reach the agencies ultimate goals, whether it is the development of nuclear weapons, or the disposal of commercial high- level nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain project is no exception. In the 15 years Nevada has fought being designated as the repository for commercial high-level nuclear waste, we have seen repeated instances of the Department ignoring or explaining away scientific findings that do not conform to its repository program. Signs of water percolating through the repository site were repeatedly ignored. Seismic activity in the area, including an earthquake that did serious damage to the buildings housing project offices, were dismissed. For every objection that has been raised, the Department has been quick to assure us that they are meaningless, and that even if there were problems, the engineers can design around them. Recently, several new discoveries have added to the uncertainty about the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository site, and called into question the models and assumptions Yucca Mountain scientists have relied upon for more than a decade. For example, analysis of material removed from the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain have shown pockets of unusually high concentrations of chlorine 136, a radioactive isotope generated by nuclear detonations. The presence of high levels of chlorine 136 at the proposed repository level is assumed to result from penetration of water from the surface, where it picked up chlorine 136 fallout from atmospheric testing at the NTS 50 years ago. This rapid penetration of water through the welded tuff of Yucca Mountain contradicts the Department of Energy's assumptions about the nature of the geology at the site, and calls into question the validity and accuracy of much of the characterization effort. Despite repeated assurances by the Department of Energy and the nuclear power industry that the nature and behavior of radioactivity and radionuclides are well understood and predictable, and thus nothing for Nevadans to worry about, evidence continues to mount that the scientific community actually knows little about this field. Just 1 month ago, scientists studying the Nevada Test Site, an area adjacent to Yucca Mountain, discovered that plutonium resulting from underground nuclear testing have migrated underground far faster and further than previously expected--nearly a mile in less than 30 years. The empirical data collected at the site contradicts the models that are being relied on by the Department to evaluate the environmental impacts of underground testing at the Nevada Test Site. The cumulative effect of these, and other, scientific assurances that later prove to be inaccurate, misleading, or even outright dishonest has been to seriously damage the credibility of the Department of Energy and the nuclear industry in Nevada, and elsewhere across the Nation. Nevadans, and many others, will continue to suffer the consequences of our failure to properly understand the nature and effects of radioactivity in the past. Despite these historical lessons, however, the proponents of nuclear energy continue to press forward with their misguided efforts to bolster the industry at the expense of the health and safety of the public. The most recent incarnation of the industry's avarice is the nuclear waste legislation currently working its way through this Congress. In a misguided attempt to remove waste from reactor sites, where it can be, according to the industry itself, safely stored for the next 100 years, the industry has proposed shipping 80,000 metric tons of its waste on 16,000 shipments through 43 States to Nevada where it will be stored in exactly the same type of storage currently available and, in some instances, currently in use at existing reactor sites. This unprecedented shipping campaign will bring shipments of high-level nuclear waste within 1 mile of the homes of more than 50 million Americans, creating potential public health and environmental consequences of staggering proportions. The nuclear power industry's attempt to ship its waste to above- ground storage in Nevada is corporate welfare at its worst. In a desperate attempt to rejuvenate a dying industry, the nuclear power industry is willing to sacrifice the health and safety of millions of Americans to improve its bottom line. Mr. President, there is simply no need to move this dangerous, poisonous waste at this time. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry itself concedes the storage of the waste at reactor sites is safe. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent oversight board created by Congress, has said that centralized interim storage is presently not needed. The nuclear power industry's waste legislation has passed the Senate and I fear will likely pass the House in the near future. Fortunately, President Clinton has committed to veto this ill-advised piece of legislation, and we are fortunate to have the votes in the Senate to sustain the veto. It is time for the nuclear utilities to give up their efforts to establish interim storage in Nevada and enter into serious negotiations with the Department of Energy regarding support for the continued storage of high-level nuclear waste at reactor sites until an objective, defensible characterization of Yucca Mountain can be completed. In the 1950's and 1960's, most public policymakers could not understand the terrible consequences that would result from atmospheric testing. Today, more than 40 years later, every taxpayer is contributing to compensate those downwind victims for the cancer, genetic, and other health effects from the fallout of those tests. It would be inexcusable for us, with what we know today, to create yet another situation where future legislators, our successors, 50, 100, or even 150 years from now will need to make similar arrangements for new generations of victims of the legislation the nuclear power industry is asking us to approve in this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and if there is any time remaining, I yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent I might speak as in morning business for a period up to 12 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to advise the floor leaders it is my intention to request approximately 12 minutes as in morning business to discuss another issue. I don't want to interrupt their flow on the floor, but it looks like this may be an appropriate time to do so.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the manner in which the Senator from Wyoming proposed.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment, on behalf of Senator Reid and myself, and ask for its consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.