Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. At most, 10 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in observing the 30th anniversary of the reunification of the city of Jerusalem. Although the modern State of Israel was founded almost 50 years ago, in 1948, the city of Jerusalem was at that time still divided between Israel and Jordan, and its holy sites were not open to all religious groups. After Jerusalem became one again in 1967, these important historical and religious sites were opened to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all others who wished to worship or simply spend some time in the Old City or at the Western Wall. I have long supported an undivided Jerusalem in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group will be protected and respected. Jerusalem is not only the capital of Israel, but also the home of more than 40 Christian denominations and the home of the Moslem religion. It is imperative that we work to preserve this city's unity and prevent any actions that would threaten this status. At the same time, we must ensure that our efforts to maintain unity in the holy city do not divide those working toward a lasting peace in the Middle East. Jerusalem is holy to many people in many different ways, and its future has understandably been a sensitive issue in the ongoing peace process. Unfortunately, some have used the issue of a unified Jerusalem to divide those who share in the city's heritage. Our support today for unity in Jerusalem does not in any way detract from our support for peace in the Middle East. The peace process, with our unqualified support, must move forward. In closing, Mr. President, I simply wish to restate my support for a unified Jerusalem that is open to all those who wish to visit its historical and spiritual sites. It is fitting that the Senate takes a moment to reflect upon the importance of Jerusalem as a symbol to people of diverse faiths and as a unified city open to all. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today Senator Bond, Senator Moseley-Braun, and I are introducing legislation to require stocks to be traded in a much more consumer-friendly fashion with the added benefit of saving investors billions of dollars. Mr. President, I send that legislation to the desk for its introduction. Let me just say parenthetically this is not the first time that I have had the privilege of working with the senior Senator from Missouri on legislation that affects vital consumer interests. He and I had the opportunity to work over several previous Congresses and secured in the last Congress significant changes to Federal law that protect consumers in terms of correcting information on their consumer histories, the largest single complaint before the Federal Trade Commission, and through his leadership and support and sustained efforts we were able to accomplish that. So I look forward to working with him on the piece of legislation that we introduce today, with the only caveat that I hope my distinguished colleague and I might be more helpful in getting this passed in a sooner period of time than we did on our previous enterprise which took three successive Congresses to work through. This legislation would bring to an end an antiquated pricing system currently used by Wall Street to buy and sell stocks that dates back to colonial times when the New York Stock Exchange was founded in the 18th century and the dollar was denominated in pieces of eight. While every other pricing system in our country has moved to dollars and cents, Wall Street continues to use this outdated eighths pricing system. As one article pointed out, and I quote, ``Imagine going to the grocery store and seeing bacon selling for $3\3/8\ and chicken potpies for $1\5/8\.'' Mr. President, not only has every other pricing system in America moved to dollars and cents, but all other major stock exchanges in the world--all--have abandoned the antiquated eighths system and now trade in decimals. The bill that we are introducing today is a companion piece of legislation to H.R. 1053 sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Oxley, Markey and Bliley. This legislation would direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to, within 1 year after the enactment of the legislation, adopt a rule to transition the stock and option markets away from their current trading practice in eighths to trading in dollars and cents. Currently, the New York Stock Exchange has a rule which mandates a minimum quote of an eighth for a share of stock trading in excess of $1. This rule is sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Otherwise, it would be a blatant example of price-fixing. This legislation would require the SEC to revise this sanction to better represent the interests of consumers and investors throughout the country. I must say, Mr. President, I have been encouraged by recent newspaper reports which suggest that the New York Stock Exchange plans to move to one-sixteenth of a dollar and in 2 years to switch to decimals. If those reports are in fact confirmed--and I am informed that there is a meeting today in which formal action will be taken to that effect--then the members of the New York Stock Exchange are to be commended for moving in the right direction. I would note, however, that there are other stock exchanges in the United States which have not yet indicated that is their course of action, and so this legislation will be necessary to ensure that all take that step. There are currently 60 million Americans who participate directly in the stock markets who would benefit from change. Large pension funds and small investors alike would benefit. According to SEC Commissioner Steven Wallman, investors would end up saving between $5 billion to $10 billion each year if stocks were traded in increments of dollars and cents rather than in the current practice of trading in eighths. It is not uncommon for a 500-million share day to occur on a given day, so a small change in the spread would mean enormous savings for investors. Many of us are reluctant to have Government intervene in the marketplace. Private sector determinations ought to be the rule, not the exception, here in America. In point of fact, we do not have a free market at work here. In fact, we have a classic example of price collusion. Wall Street dictates that this antiquated system be used and that all dealers must adhere to it. In essence, we are not interfering with the free market system; we are stepping in to help the stock market act more like a free market. We are not trying to dictate the spreads that could be charged in the buying and selling of stocks or the profits that Wall Street can make. In my judgment, that would be appropriate. If this legislation is enacted, however, stocks would be traded in dollars and cents and then the free market can more accurately determine what the prices and spreads should be. This is the essence of a free market. This is the essence of free enterprise. It seems appropriate as we move into the 21st century. It is time the United States joined the rest of the world in using a more rational, understandable system of stock transactions.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today Senator Bond, Senator Moseley-Braun, and I are introducing legislation to require stocks to be traded in a much more consumer-friendly fashion with the added benefit of saving investors billions of dollars. Mr. President, I send that legislation to the desk for its introduction. Let me just say parenthetically this is not the first time that I have had the privilege of working with the senior Senator from Missouri on legislation that affects vital consumer interests. He and I had the opportunity to work over several previous Congresses and secured in the last Congress significant changes to Federal law that protect consumers in terms of correcting information on their consumer histories, the largest single complaint before the Federal Trade Commission, and through his leadership and support and sustained efforts we were able to accomplish that. So I look forward to working with him on the piece of legislation that we introduce today, with the only caveat that I hope my distinguished colleague and I might be more helpful in getting this passed in a sooner period of time than we did on our previous enterprise which took three successive Congresses to work through. This legislation would bring to an end an antiquated pricing system currently used by Wall Street to buy and sell stocks that dates back to colonial times when the New York Stock Exchange was founded in the 18th century and the dollar was denominated in pieces of eight. While every other pricing system in our country has moved to dollars and cents, Wall Street continues to use this outdated eighths pricing system. As one article pointed out, and I quote, ``Imagine going to the grocery store and seeing bacon selling for $3\3/8\ and chicken potpies for $1\5/8\.'' Mr. President, not only has every other pricing system in America moved to dollars and cents, but all other major stock exchanges in the world--all--have abandoned the antiquated eighths system and now trade in decimals. The bill that we are introducing today is a companion piece of legislation to H.R. 1053 sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Oxley, Markey and Bliley. This legislation would direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to, within 1 year after the enactment of the legislation, adopt a rule to transition the stock and option markets away from their current trading practice in eighths to trading in dollars and cents. Currently, the New York Stock Exchange has a rule which mandates a minimum quote of an eighth for a share of stock trading in excess of $1. This rule is sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Otherwise, it would be a blatant example of price-fixing. This legislation would require the SEC to revise this sanction to better represent the interests of consumers and investors throughout the country. I must say, Mr. President, I have been encouraged by recent newspaper reports which suggest that the New York Stock Exchange plans to move to one-sixteenth of a dollar and in 2 years to switch to decimals. If those reports are in fact confirmed--and I am informed that there is a meeting today in which formal action will be taken to that effect--then the members of the New York Stock Exchange are to be commended for moving in the right direction. I would note, however, that there are other stock exchanges in the United States which have not yet indicated that is their course of action, and so this legislation will be necessary to ensure that all take that step. There are currently 60 million Americans who participate directly in the stock markets who would benefit from change. Large pension funds and small investors alike would benefit. According to SEC Commissioner Steven Wallman, investors would end up saving between $5 billion to $10 billion each year if stocks were traded in increments of dollars and cents rather than in the current practice of trading in eighths. It is not uncommon for a 500-million share day to occur on a given day, so a small change in the spread would mean enormous savings for investors. Many of us are reluctant to have Government intervene in the marketplace. Private sector determinations ought to be the rule, not the exception, here in America. In point of fact, we do not have a free market at work here. In fact, we have a classic example of price collusion. Wall Street dictates that this antiquated system be used and that all dealers must adhere to it. In essence, we are not interfering with the free market system; we are stepping in to help the stock market act more like a free market. We are not trying to dictate the spreads that could be charged in the buying and selling of stocks or the profits that Wall Street can make. In my judgment, that would be appropriate. If this legislation is enacted, however, stocks would be traded in dollars and cents and then the free market can more accurately determine what the prices and spreads should be. This is the essence of a free market. This is the essence of free enterprise. It seems appropriate as we move into the 21st century. It is time the United States joined the rest of the world in using a more rational, understandable system of stock transactions.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague from Colorado for his courtesy in securing my recognition after him. (The remarks of Mr. Bryan and Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 838 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for yielding me 3 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today to stress the importance of passing this bill so that vital disaster relief assistance is made available to the hundreds of communities impacted by weather-related disasters. In Nevada, this flooding took place in early January, and the situation facing Nevada's farming and ranching communities gets more critical with each day that passes. The damage that occurred when the Truckee, Carson, and Walker Rivers overflowed their banks devastated urban and rural areas alike in six counties in Nevada. Thousands of homes in Nevada were flooded, forcing families to move into emergency relief centers to wait for the floodwaters to recede. In the cities of Reno and Sparks, water flowed 10 feet above the banks of the Truckee River in the business district. Hundreds of businesses were forced to shut down, putting 20,000 people out of work. Much of this initial damage was addressed by the swift and able Federal emergency relief efforts. I was extremely pleased with the assistance provided by Federal and local workers, who put forth an incredible effort. As the emergency funds that supported these initial life-saving efforts have dried up, however, Nevada's rural communities in particular have been unable to begin repairs to riverbanks, levees, and flood control structures that are essential to their livelihoods. The damage to these areas was severe; after surveying flood damage from a helicopter with FEMA director James Lee Witt, I was struck by how much the normally rolling green hills of Mason Valley looked like a giant rice paddy in Southeast Asia. Dams were destroyed, rivers carved new paths through fields and pastures, and roads were washed out by the record flows on Nevada's rivers. The irrigation structures that divert water to ranches and farms in Northern Nevada were severely damaged or wiped out completely, leaving the farms near the riverbanks under water, while those farther away from the river were cut off completely. These families lost crops, livestock, all of the hay that normally would carry their cattle through the winter, and miles of fencing around their property. Some of those cut off from the rivers dug new ditches to bring water to their livestock at their own expense, while others have simply resigned themselves to the fact that they will not be able to survive this season, and may go out of business. You see, Mr. President, most of the farms and ranches that I am talking about are family-owned and managed, and are hard pressed to keep going without some immediate help. Mr. President, the circumstances in my own State and some other 30 States compel that we act immediately. It is for that reason I express my profound regret that some have found necessary to add political riders to this bill, riders that are totally unrelated and irrelevant to the issue at hand. I urge immediate action on this bill. Nevada's families deserve no less. I yield my time and thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for accommodating me.

Mr. BRYAN. Three minutes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, many of our senior citizens are once again being targeted by scam artists. This time, senior citizens are being charged excessive fees by so-called estate planners who provide information on reverse mortgages and charge 8 percent to 10 percent of the loan. More than 12 million elderly homeowners own their homes free and clear of mortgages. This implies the availability of a potentially large market for home equity conversion programs. Reverse mortgages, one of the hottest financial products of the 1990's for seniors, allow homeowners to tap into the equity in their homes and use that equity as a source of income. They work much like traditional mortgages, only in reverse. Rather than making a payment to your lender each month, the lender pays the homeowner. Depending on the loan, a reverse mortgage becomes due with interest when the homeowner moves, sells the property, or dies. The reverse mortgage program provides tens of thousands of older homeowners, who are ``house-rich, but cash-poor,'' the opportunity to turn their home equity into spendable cash to deal with major financial setbacks such as home repairs, significant health costs, or basic living needs. Reports of abusive practices should not diminish the value of this product. Rather, we must find a way to protect senior homeowners from scam artists who prey on the vulnerabilities of elderly Americans. Mr. President, senior citizens across the country are being charged scandalous fees for information that can be obtained free from HUD. According to HUD, many older Americans who sign contracts with estate planning services and are charged large fees are unaware that the same information is available from HUD at no cost. Generally, estate planners fees range from 6 to 10 percent of the loan amount. This translates into $3,000 to $5,000 for a $50,000 loan or $6,000 to $10,000 for a $100,000 loan. Pauline and Jim Mitchell both 79 years old from Henderson, NV were forced to spend most of their savings when Pauline's mother--who was stricken with Alzheimers--moved in with the Mitchells for 7 years before she passed away last year. When the Mitchells were approached by a door-to-door salesman about obtaining a reverse mortgage to pay off expenses, they were extremely interested. What they did not know, however, was that it would cost them $4,500. It was not until they received their lump sum check of $31,000, did they realize that $4,500 had been taken out--in addition to the normal closing costs. That represents a 12 percent commission above and beyond closing costs--for a service they could get for free if they had contacted HUD or the lender directly. At most, they should have been charged a few hundred dollars referral fee--not $4,500. Mickey Kimberlin and her husband James from Las Vegas were charged $4,000 for information about a reverse mortgage. The Kimberlins were interested in obtaining a reverse mortgage to help pay for mounting family medical bills. When they were contacted by a representative of America's Trust Inc. of San Juan Capistrano in California, they did not realize they would be charged 8.5 percent of the loan. The Senior Citizen Home Equity Protection Act will protect senior citizens receiving a HUD home equity conversion mortgage from further exploitation by these predator lenders. Our legislation will no longer allow scam artists to hide outrageous reverse mortgage fees. Full disclosure of the costs and the ability of HUD to prevent excessive fees are important and necessary steps to take to protect senior citizens seeking reverse mortgages. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation to protect our Nation's senior citizens.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, let me take 12 seconds. It is late in the game. Any Senator who believes we do not eviscerate and emasculate the standards set by the National Academy of Science, look at page 37, my friends. That is why no environmental organization in America supports it; they all oppose it.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be extended to a staff member of mine, Brent Heberlee, throughout consideration of S. 104 and amendments thereto.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to the chairman, the floor manager, we have had a spirited and prolonged debate. That is in the best tradition of the Senate. I thank him for his personal courtesies in terms of procedure in the Chamber so that we were given an opportunity to fully express and develop our views. Let me say to my colleagues who voted against this bill, I know that for a number of them it was particularly difficult. That vote was in the interest of good science. I appreciate their courage. I appreciate their support. Senator Rockefeller could not be here this morning because he has another matter. We appreciate his support, and he reaffirmed his support to us in a message earlier today. Several of my colleagues indicated they would be with us to support us on the veto override if it reaches that point. So I think what we have done is to allow science and logic to proceed in the development of what is a responsible nuclear waste policy rather than to respond to the emotions of the occasion. I appreciate very much my colleagues who stayed with us on this important issue and the floor leader and the chairman for his courtesies in permitting us to proceed in an orderly fashion. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, what the Senate is asked to do this morning is a total repudiation and rejection of good science. S. 104 is opposed by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a body of eminent scientists, created pursuant to an act of Congress. They reviewed it last year in 1996 and last year. They say two things. First, it is unnecessary. Second, it interferes with the citing process, which is currently taking place. We dismantle the environmental laws in America if we enact this legislation. In 1992, the Energy Efficiency Act directed the National Academy of Sciences in conjunction with EPA to develop a standard. They are about ready to do that. This legislation rejects that standard and proposes a limitation on the ability of the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA to develop the standard that would provide minimal protections for health and safety. The third point that needs to be made is that the Nevada test site is frequently referenced. That is the proposed site for the alternative storage, the interim storage. No study has ever been made that would indicate that the Nevada test site is either desirable or suitable as an interim storage facility. The fourth point I make is that this legislation, in fact, preempts laws in my own State, unlike it does any other State in America. The environmental protection laws are essentially delegated to the States with their ability to enforce. This legislation would preempt that ability. So in Nevada we could not enforce clean air, clean water, safe drinking, RCRA, and other provisions. The fifth point is that the National Environmental Policy Act is gutted by the provisions. It is bad legislation. I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I am wondering, I might say to the chairman, at one point we had been told that one of our other colleagues may want to speak, and I refer to the ranking member on the committee. I do not know if that is still the case. May we suggest the absence of a quorum and check with him?

Mr. BRYAN. Let me ask my colleague if he cares to speak.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I perhaps will not require all the time. I do not, Mr. President, want to take much time to talk about the merits of S. 104 because, as we will point out later, S. 104 is a very bad piece of legislation and, in my view, is a policy disaster. It is unnecessary. There are provisions that would preempt Federal and State law, standards, viability, transportation--there are many, many things that could be said about the legislation, and I will address each of those arguments with some particularity. I must say that I am constrained to address the issue of the lawsuit, because we hear a lot about the lawsuit. The lawsuit was decided before our votes were cast last year on S. 1936, but I think it is curious and revealing, revealing as to the true motives of this bill. Nothing in S. 104 deals with the lawsuits. This Senator believes that ratepayers who are in a position where they may incur additional expense for storage because of the unavailability of a permanent repository in 1998 are entitled to relief. I do not think ratepayers ought to pay twice. I have introduced legislation each year that I have been a Member of Congress to express that view. It is curious, Mr. President, the utilities who drive the policy in this-- this is the nuclear utilities bill--do not want to talk about that. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, the Secretary of the Department of Energy acknowledged that the Department wanted to talk about compensation to utilities who will incur additional expense because they will be storing beyond what was contemplated in 1982 as a 1998 acceptance date. So this legislation does nothing with respect to compensation or to provide relief for ratepayers, and the fact that it does not makes the motive so abundantly clear. This is all about getting the waste out to Nevada, irrespective of environmental or other policy considerations. Let me talk, if I may, very briefly, about the substitute as it deals with the mill tax levy. Current law provides that the utilities must pay into the nuclear waste trust fund on the basis of 1 mill per kilowatt hour of nuclear power generated. It goes into a trust fund. That is paid only so long as that utility generates nuclear power. If you look at this line, Mr. President, the mill fee payment line, you will notice it rapidly declines between now and the year 2033, and the reason for that is because every currently licensed nuclear reactor in America will be closed by 2033. Their license period will expire. So with each closure of a reactor, less is being paid into the fund. The obligation, however, in terms of dealing with the issue of nuclear waste goes out to the year 2071, so that you can see that there is another 38 years beyond 2033 that there is a responsibility to make payments dealing with the waste, and there will be no money coming in. Currently, the Department estimates that the nuclear waste trust fund is underfunded between $4 billion and $8 billion currently. If it is underfunded, I respectfully submit that you do not need a degree from the Wharton School of Finance to know who is going to make up the shortfall. It is the American taxpayers who are going to make it up. So the current law says with respect to the mill levy and how much it will be, is that the Secretary will make a recommendation when it needs to be adjusted, and unless the Congress or one House rejects that recommendation, that will go into effect. It was a law not written by the Nevada delegation. It dates back to the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Here is what is done to change all of that. In the original substitute, we changed the burden so that now any change to increase the rate of mill-tax collection, rather than being enacted unless there is a rejection by one House, it requires an affirmative burden to pass both Houses of Congress. As the distinguished occupant of the Chair knows, based upon his considerable legislative experience, it is far more difficult to pass a piece of legislation than to object to it. So that is the nub of this. It will be virtually impossible if the utilities object to an increase in the mill levy to get that on because it will require both Houses of Congress to affirmatively act on a resolution. In the substitute that was offered by the able chairman of the Energy Committee, all budget points of order were waived. So the Senator from New Mexico, and appropriately so, sought an amendment in the first degree to restore a budget point of order, and I have no quarrel with that. The second degree, in effect, provides that still both Houses must approve any increase, and so, in my judgment, this is a provision that is designed to provide relief for the utilities to leave the nuclear waste fund underfunded by billions and billions of dollars, and long after any Member who currently serves in this body or the other body leaves, the American taxpayer is going to get the short end of the stick. Let me say, Mr. President, that no one would disagree if they are honest with their original position that it was understood that the nuclear utilities would undertake an expense of all of the cost of nuclear waste disposal. That was an obligation they agreed to do and that is why the mill tax on each kilowatt hour was imposed, that is why the nuclear waste trust fund. But through this substitute, we have a situation that will exacerbate the shortfall. It is said there is $8 billion in the trust fund, but, Mr. President, from 2033 until 2071, nothing comes into the trust fund because all of the reactors that are currently licensed are shut down. That is the buildup, and that is what this yellow line indicates, because it begins to build up and it, too, declines as the expenses are incurred and the revenues into the fund decrease. So this is a bad, bad amendment, and I urge that it be rejected. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I am wondering, since I speak in opposition, if I might get time either yielded from the time of the Senator from Alaska or the Senator from New Mexico? I was not aware that there was not time allocated to those who oppose the amendment. If that is the state of the parliamentary situation, I ask for 10 minutes, if there is that much time available. I do not think I will need that much time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am sure that most of my colleagues who have watched this debate for the last week are of the opinion that after some 5 days of debate that everything that can ultimately be said about this legislation has been said, and I hate to disabuse them of the notion but my colleague from Nevada and I are going to beg their indulgence and talk a little bit more about the substitute that has been offered by the Senator from Alaska. It is my firm conviction that the belief of the scientific community is that this legislation for interim storage is unnecessary. That is the conclusion advanced by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. We have talked about that a great deal. But the reason this is important is that this is the scientific community. This is not the Senator from Nevada debating with our friends from Alaska, Idaho, or any other State delegation. Not a single member of this Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board is a Nevadan. That is their position; that it is a fundamental flaw in this legislation. It is not necessary. It is not being requested by the scientific community. It is not being supported by the scientific community, and quite to the contrary. The 1996 report says that the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was reconstituted with new members in 1997, a new chairman, and a number of new members. And they reaffirmed the position of the technical review board a year ago in concluding that it is not necessary. It is not necessary. So it is premature. It is unwise. It is the worst of policy. I only wish I were capable, Mr. President, of articulating with more insight, more capacity, and with more persuasive force because it has been said here on the floor of the Senate over and over again that the Nevada test site is the preferred alternative. Mr. President, there is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that. Yucca Mountain is being characterized or studied for the permanent repository. But there has been no scientific evaluation or judgment made that the Nevada test site is a preferred alternative--none-- because under the current law an interim storage facility cannot be established in Nevada, nor the State of the distinguished occupant of the chair, nor any other State until application is made for licensure under the permanent site. So there has been no search in a scientific sense to have a determination made as to an interim site. So anyone who thinks that this is the product of analytical scientific reasoning needs to be aware of the fact that there has been no study, no evaluation, no scientific analysis, nothing--absolutely nothing--that suggests that the Nevada test site is a preferred alternative or a desired alternative; absolutely not because the focus in terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is the permanent geological storage. And Yucca Mountain, much to my dismay--I don't like this fact--but Yucca Mountain is being studied or characterized. And that is where the focus has been in terms of scientific study and analysis. So I think it is important to make that clear distinction. It has been said that the Nevada test site has been used for previous testing programs. That is true. But that is not to suggest that makes it a preferred or a better site than any one of a number of other possibilities around the country. I think we need to try to drive that point home to my colleagues who are studying this issue and who are trying to make some rational judgments based upon the debate we have had over the last 5 days. The substitute: It has been said that it is a better piece of legislation than the one last year. I suppose if a terminally ill man is told that he has 6 months to live rather than 3 months to live, that is better news, but it is still not a desirable result and certainly something that would cause little rejoicing. This is a bad piece of legislation because it destroys a carefully crafted, carefully constructed environmental protection legislative framework that has served America under both Republican and Democratic Presidents exceedingly well for the last 28 years or so. It has been said by our friends who are arguing for this that we have taken care of the problem of preemption. Those who followed the debate in the last Congress will recall that preemption was at the heart of the issue, and it continues to remain so. Here is what the law says. Let me just say that the nuclear utility lawyers ought to get an A-plus for being clever and disingenuous, because this is an exceedingly skillful bit of legalistic drafting that produces a consequence that I think no fair-minded person could conclude. The substitute says that except as provided in a couple sections a law, regulation, order, or other requirement of a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe is preempted. So the argument that is made in the Chamber is that we are only preempting State law. Not true, not true, not true, because under the legislative system we have established for the environmental acts that have been passed over the last nearly three decades, Federal legislation is enacted whether we are talking about safe drinking water, clean air, clean water, RCRA, in which the States are delegated the ability to enforce if they enact legislation that is equal to or greater than the Federal legislation. It has been suggested the language that is used now in the new section 501, found on page 59, of S. 104, the substitute, is just what we have in HAZMAT. Not true, Mr. President, not true, not true. HAZMAT has a provision that says except as provided in the appropriate subsections unless authorized by another law of the United States, a requirement of a State, political subdivision of a State, or an Indian tribe is preempted. The operative language ``unless authorized by another law of the U.S.'' It is not by omission, inadvertence or happenstance that operative language ``unless authorized by the U.S.'' has been dropped, because it is that provision of law in the HAZMAT code that says ``unless authorized by another law of the U.S.'' that enables a State statute responding to the delegation of authority given to it under Federal environmental law, that those State laws are protected because they are authorized by Federal law. So here is what we have. Let us forget for a moment what kind of passion one might have for nuclear waste and a sense, yes, gosh, it ought to be sent somewhere. But let us just talk about policy. If this legislation passes, Nevada will be the only State in the Union that will be unable to enforce a State law enacted pursuant to an environmental delegation of authority. Now, what conceivable rationale could possibly lead to that conclusion? It is very clear that this is nothing less than a preemption, and so we are talking about safe drinking water, clean air, clean water, RCRA, much as we did in the last session of the Congress when this was debated. Another provision is kind of interesting as well if HAZMAT be the standard. Under HAZMAT, a State has the ability to make application for a waiver to that preemption of a State law--a law that would not be enacted pursuant to the delegation of Federal authority under our environmental law--but let's just say another provision of State law. A State would have the ability to seek a waiver and a judgment would be made as to whether or not a waiver should be granted. That provision is not included, not included, not included in S. 104. Furthermore, under the waiver provision, if a State is denied a waiver provision under the HAZMAT legislation, which is again asserted by the supporters of S. 104, S. 104 is virtually--and we will come back to the word ``virtually'' in a moment--identical to HAZMAT. We already have it. No reason to be concerned. This is something that we have established, a precedent. The policy is there. We are just simply asking you to do no more in S. 104 than we have all agreed to be done in HAZMAT. Not true, Mr. President, not true, not true, because in HAZMAT a State that makes an application for a waiver, that provision that is not available under S. 104, also has the ability for judicial review, to have the denial reviewed in a court of law consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act that exists at the Federal level and State level. But under S. 104 there is no mechanism provided for judicial review. Another provision ever so subtle is a provision that goes on to say that any law that is not the same as or substantially the same as--this would also be on page 9. I read as follows: Except as otherwise provided in this act, a law, regulation, order or other requirement of a State, political subdivision of a State or Indian tribe about any of the following subjects that is not substantially the same as-- ``Not substantially the same as.'' That, too, differs from what we have previously had in HAZMAT where we are talking about as long as it is not inconsistent with. A totally different standard. Under S. 104, your State law is preempted if it is not substantially the same. Under HAZMAT, it would be preempted if it was inconsistent with. A big, big difference. Now, here is what that means. The Senator that presides is from a Western State, and he knows the importance of water law to those of us in the West. He also knows, because his State, like my own, is relatively arid and ground water resources are of critical concern to the viability and the integrity of the economy of his State as well as my own. Under this provision in S. 104, the ground water quality control provisions of State law are preempted, even though those ground water provisions have long predated the debate about nuclear waste, because they are not substantially the same as the provisions of this act. So, in effect, the State of Nevada would be unable to exercise control of its own ground water based upon the standards established by law or regulation because those statements, standards or regulations are not substantially the same as a provision of this act. So, in effect, we do have a preemption, a preemption in the first instance that gives us the inability to enforce State statutes enacted pursuant to an environmental delegation--the whole raft of Federal environmental legislation which has as its premise to allow States to enforce those standards so long as they enact statutes or regulations that would be equal to or greater than the Federal standard. We have no provision to apply for a waiver, and we have no ability for judicial review. Add to that not only do we preempt those provisions in State law that would be inconsistent with the enactment of S. 104, but those provisions that are not substantially the same. So a whole host of legislative enactments that have had nothing to do with the debate and Yucca Mountain or nuclear waste could be preempted. Now, I have to tell you, what possible policy would justify that conclusion? Well, it is our friends to the nuclear utilities who, indeed, want to tie our hands, who, indeed, want to trample upon the environmental protection provisions that all Americans enjoy irrespective of State and to say to one State those provisions shall not be available to your citizens. I want to talk about the viability assessment because that has been discussed at some length during the course of this debate. I think in order to do so we need to recount a little history. Currently, a standard is being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. That direction was part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The 1992 Energy Policy Act directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and promulgate a standard that is consistent with, and I shall read it: The administrator shall, based upon and consistent with the findings and recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences promulgate by rule public health and safety standards for protection of the public from releases from radioactive materials stored or to be disposed of in the repository at Yucca Mountain. This was not a provision insisted upon by the Nevada delegation. This happens to be a decent policy that directs the EPA to develop a standard consistent with the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences has come up with its recommendation, and the EPA is about ready to promulgate that standard. So what do we have now? We have legislation now in S. 104 that says the following. It is kind of now we give it to you and now we take it back. Now it says in S. 104 that the Administrator shall achieve consistency with the findings and recommendations of the National Academies of Science and the Commission shall amend its regulations accordingly. All right, that sounds like basically we are talking about the standards that the Congress directed NAS to come up with the recommendations and the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt. Not so, Mr. President, not so. Because the following text goes on to change those standards considerably. The risk standard, in terms of the group that is to be examined, in terms of the possibility of risk due to death from cancer, is changed; assumptions are made that are not part of the National Academy of Sciences, particularly the length of period for which the standard shall apply. It is assumed, for purposes of S. 104, that the standard has a premise that there is no population migration into or near or adjacent to the area, that we establish the standard based upon those people who currently live in the vicinity. That is certainly an unrealistic premise, and one that the academy of sciences would certainly reject, particularly in an area, as southern Nevada is, the fastest-growing place in America with a population that now exceeds 1 million people and in which the relentless movement of people in the southern Nevada area each month, and each year, moves to the north and toward Yucca Mountain. So, why would you freeze or limit the ability of those who are to promulgate the standards to only those people who are living where they are living today as opposed to those who would reflect reasonable migration changes? Another provision is the assumption that there will be no human intrusion. Again, that is something specifically rejected by the National Academy of Sciences. So, we have a standard that is now being changed. It is now being changed. This standard was about ready to be promulgated based upon the 1992 Energy Act directives with respect to the National Academy of Sciences, and requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt a standard that is consistent with those findings. Now we are given a whole additional subset of limitations and restrictions. It is as if one said: I want you to follow with great meticulous care and detail the Constitution of the United States, but you shall not consider the first amendment, you shall not consider the fifth amendment, or the sixth amendment. That is about what we have here. Follow the standards, but you cannot do this, you must not consider this, and you must put a limitation on the period of time for which that evaluation is being given in terms of prospective safety. So we have a mockery of the standards. The standards are important for a number of reasons, but a lot of debate occurred here earlier this afternoon about the assessment--the viability assessment, as it is called--and the timeline. That is very, very important because the President of the United States is directed to make a viability assessment by no later than March 1, 1999. What is the problem? First of all, we expected that there would, in fact, be a standard promulgated, as I have indicated, because the Environmental Protection Agency, after some 5 years working with the National Academy of Sciences, is about ready to come forth with one. But as I have also indicated in my previous comment, no such standard is going to be approved because, if S. 104 becomes the law, a very different standard will emerge; a very different standard will emerge. So the President of the United States is going to have to make the viability determination. He is told, in the first instance, that he should rely upon the standard promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency but I must say, in view of the fact that the standard is being changed totally, nobody believes that new standard will be ready by March 1, 1999, when the President has to make his viability assessment. So, what does this legislation say? I have never seen anything like this. Once upon a time I practiced a little law, I read some statutes, examined some regulations. This provision goes on to say if the standard under section 206(F), that is what we have been talking about, has not been promulgated, and I reiterate I don't believe anybody believes that it will be, because they are being asked now to draft a new standard with all the limitations that we have previously recommended, then, in effect the President shall make this determination relative to an estimate--rather, the Secretary, excuse me--``relative to an estimate by the Secretary of an overall performance standard that is consistent with section 206 (F).''--an estimate, a guess; March 1, 1999, because S. 104 directs that a new standard be prepared, and it has taken essentially the better part of 5 years to develop the standard that was about to be promulgated. So, not only must the President make a viability assessment on a standard that is not in existence, he is directed to make a viability assessment based upon an estimate of what that standard might be--an estimate. That is just a very nice legalism for a guess. How in the world would he be able to make that determination when the technical people, the environmental agency, working with the National Academy of Sciences, would not have such a standard available to him for a determination? So, any suggestion of a standard, any suggestion of a viability assessment that is based upon a standard, is simply not going to occur. I want to comment on this lawsuit, if I may, before yielding the floor to my senior colleague. We have heard it argued 500 different ways, in every conceivable mood, tense, that this lawsuit, with the decision that the Department of Energy has liability, that this is such a dreadful thing, that this will cause the ratepayers to endure all kinds of hardship, that they will be denied the benefit of that bargain, that it is a terrible, terrible thing and in fairness to the ratepayers we need to get S. 104 enacted. There is not one word in this legislation that provides any relief to the ratepayers. I happen to think that the ratepayers are entitled to some protection because, in 1998, under no conceivable scenario will any kind of facility be open to which high-level nuclear waste can be transported. But I have to tell you, all of this wringing of hands, all of this gnashing of teeth, all of this great empathy for the ratepayer--and I happen to believe the ratepayer ought to be protected--not a single word in S. 104 provides benefits to the ratepayer because of additional costs which they might incur if, come 1998, they need to provide for additional storage on-site. Indeed, as has been pointed out time and time again, the Secretary of the Department of Energy has made it very clear that compensation needs to be made. We have heard all kinds of things: It is going to cost $80 billion, $59 billion, $30 billion--the numbers are as elusive as a shooting star. But the measure of damages that the utilities, on behalf of their ratepayers, are entitled to is spelled out in the contract. It is spelled out in the contract that each utility was required to enter into in 1982 or shortly thereafter, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was entered into. It is clearly laid out in article 9, ``delays.'' It is apparently a well-drafted contract. If the delays are unavoidable, then in such instances the schedule for delivery of nuclear waste is simply modified in accordance with the exigencies as they are in light of the delay. No monetary damages are assessed. If, however, a determination is made that the delays were avoidable and that, indeed, the Department of Energy bears a responsibility for that delay, then specifically the contract provides: The charges and schedules specified by this contract will be equitably adjusted to reflect any estimated additional costs incurred by the party not responsible for or contributing to the delay. Mr. President, that is fair and that is reasonable. If, indeed, a determination is made that this is a delay that is at the fault of the Department of Energy, the ratepayer and the utility is entitled to have the sums paid into the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund equitably adjusted to reflect any estimated additional cost incurred by the party not responsible for or contributing to the delay. Mr. President, I agree with that. That is fair to the ratepayer. Indeed, in legislation that I have introduced in each Congress since 1989, I have essentially proposed that kind of remedy. So, if my colleagues are concerned about the additional cost that the ratepayer may incur because of the unavailability of a repository in 1998, S. 104 provides no comfort for them or their constituents. There is no relief with respect to any additional cost that may be incurred. Mr. President, I am going to stop here and yield the floor and give my colleague an opportunity to make some comments and then I will conclude my remarks thereafter. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the status? How much time is remaining on the amendment we are debating?

Mr. BRYAN. On the other side of the proposition, if I might inquire of the distinguished Senator who is presiding?

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for his extraordinary review of this piece of legislation, in pointing out its pitfalls. We are concluding a week's debate on this, Mr. President. I want to make just a couple of more points, and then tomorrow we will have a vote and we will either do the right thing, or we will impose upon the American public a terrible public policy consequence. Mr. President, I have reviewed in an earlier part of my statement the various provisions in this bill, which, in my view, represent the most atrocious policy options that one could conjure up. As my senior colleague mentioned, who would you trust and rely upon to give you advice on an issue that, obviously, is very technical, very complicated? For those of us who do not deal with these kinds of issues every day, this is not something that is intuitive judgment. I want to return to the starting point for just a moment to talk about this being unnecessary legislation--unnecessary in that the policy and the scientific community disagree with its very premise. Now, when you look at the various groups that are playing a role in this debate, one thing stands out: The only people that are advocating this legislation are the nuclear utilities and their supporters. It is not the environmental community. My colleague recited that every major organization in America that has an environmental constituency has opposed this legislation, and for good reason. It is not the scientific community. We frequently hear science invoked as the governing beacon that ought to guide us in this policy debate. If that were true, there would not be a single vote for S. 104, because the scientific community is not urging us to enact this legislation. This is legislation that has been generated, fomented by the nuclear utility industry and is part of the history that we have faced in America in dealing with this very complicated, troublesome, and very, very dangerous electrical generation source. More than 15 years ago, we were confronted with policy debates that sound very much like those on the floor today, in which the utilities said that we are going to be without energy, we will have brownouts, and the utilities will be forced to close because they will run out of reactor space. This was all generating hysteria. It was not true then and it is not true now. But that has been the legacy that we have in this debate, in trying to make our way through the very sound judgments that ought to control our decisionmaking process in reaching the proper conclusion. So, essentially, you have the policymakers, the scientific community, the President of the United States all saying, look, this is unnecessary. They are allied against the utilities who have made this argument, as I say, for several decades. It has been said that this is a better piece of legislation. I think that is very questionable, Mr. President. When one looks at what is done, we wreak havoc upon the environmental legislation in America. Only by the most tortured and twisted and convoluted logic could S. 104 be considered sound environmental policy. The preemption provisions, which I have discussed at some length, deprive a State of its ability to enforce environmental laws by the Federal Government. It eliminates waiver provisions that are part and parcel of our environmental legislation that provides judicial review. We talked about what is done to standards. Those have greatly been diminished. We are talking about something, Mr. President, that isn't just temporarily inconvenient or needs to be cleaned up because it would be a nuisance in the community. We are talking about something that is lethal, deadly, for 10,000 years and beyond. That is beyond the period of recorded history. We have never dealt with that kind of a policy issue. I can understand the frustration that some of my colleagues experience, that it may be another 4, 5, 6 years before this determination or that. But when you are talking about 10,000 years, and beyond, 4 or 5 years more to get it right, to do the right thing, to protect the health and safety of the American public seems rather little to ask when you are dealing with something as dangerous as this. We have talked about the flaw in the viability assessment of the President of the United States. He has to make his assessment based on a standard that is not going to exist. Charitably, it would have to be a guess. How can one make a sound policy judgment based upon a standard that is yet to be developed and is nonexistent? Whatever one thinks about the politics of this administration, one would have to conclude that it is the ultimate irresponsibility to ask any Chief Executive to make a judgment based upon his or her assessment, when the standard upon which the benchmarks are to be measured don't exist. My colleague talked at great length about the transportation dangers. I understand that we all in this Chamber are candidates who have faced the people in our States respectively. I understand that the utilities in a number of States have leaned very heavily and have been to the offices and advocated and raised all kinds of specters. Let me just suggest for a moment that what is happening in California as we speak, I think, is very instructive. There, as many of you may be aware, nuclear waste is going to be shipped from the Pacific in the Concorde and then transported over the Sierra Nevada from California into Nevada and, ultimately, to be stored in Idaho. If you think that the pressures that the utilities have brought to bear are heavy, when the first series of 17,000 shipments of high-level waste traversing the highways and rail systems of 43 States, in which 51 million people live within 1 mile or less--when that begins to occur, much as my senior colleague has pointed out with graphic detail about what has occurred fairly recently in Germany, that is going to be a real constituent concern, and rightly so, because an accident can have a devastating impact upon the health of that community. So this is not just a Nevada issue. This is an issue which will affect many millions of people in this country. We have talked about the lawsuit, how there is this great empathy and understanding about the ratepayers and the consequences for them, how they paid $8 billion over the years into the nuclear waste trust fund. Nothing in this legislation provides 1 cent of relief for the ratepayers. That, to me, is the true indicator of what this is all about. This isn't trying to provide equity for the ratepayers. This is not trying to provide or prevent ratepayers from paying twice for something that they have already paid once for. It has nothing to do with that, or you would see relief in S. 104. There is nothing. Nothing provides any relief for a lawsuit. The lawsuit remedy, as I have indicated, under section 9 of the contract, provides for an equitable adjustment of payments made into the nuclear waste fund. I think that is fine. But nothing in this legislation deals with the ratepayers, because nothing is contained that provides any kind of equitable relief for the ratepayers. Finally, let me talk about one other section of this legislation, which I think, again, would indicate how corrupting it is in terms of doing great violence to the environmental laws of America, laws that have, by and large, survived the test of time for nearly three decades and have enjoyed bipartisan support. It was during the Nixon administration that most of these pieces of legislation first saw the light of day. I want to talk about the National Environmental Policy Act, as it is referred to as NEPA. We are told in one instance that NEPA must be followed. It sounds good, doesn't it? But then we are told that the following activities will be deemed preliminary activities. That just might seem like words--``preliminary.'' That is a very precise term because preliminary activities are not subject to judicial review. And in most instances, the courts themselves make a judgment as to whether something is deemed preliminary or final for the purposes of review. But just as a further indication of how this stacks the deck against anything that provides environmental protection, you have a whole series of actions at page 90 under this act--transportation requirements; viability assessment, and that is section 204; 205(a) is generic design, submitted for interim storage; 205 is site-specific design standards; 205 is license application for interim storage; 206 is repository characterizations. Each of those sections are deemed to be preliminary, so as to preclude the opportunity for independent judgment as to whether or not they do, in fact, comply with the law and make good sense. So, in effect, what we do in those sections, if 104 passes, we gut NEPA, eviscerate it. We proclaim our great devotion to it in the first section, but then say that it shall not include the following. Let me further go on to indicate that the essence of NEPA is to consider the various options or choices that are available. That is the underlying premise, the theory being that if you look at all of the options on the table, we will rule out, through some rational, thoughtful process, those that are the least compelling from a policy point of view and reach a conclusion as to the best of the options available. But we are told here, with respect to the environmental impact statement, that is part of the NEPA requirement, that this commission shall not be required to consider the need for an interim storage facility, the time of initial availability of a repository or interim storage facility, the alternatives to geological disposal or centralized interim storage or alternatives to the interim storage facility site. So to profess that we do give any kind of meaningful adherence to the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--is itself a travesty. Finally, let me say that when the vote comes tomorrow, I hope that my colleagues, putting aside all of the technical arguments for a moment, might consider policy. What is the right policy for America? What protects public health and safety? What is the most thoughtful way to proceed? Mr. President, the most thoughtful way to proceed is to reject S. 104. It has been asserted that we have no policy with respect to the disposal of nuclear waste. That is simply not true. The policy that we have was essentially designed in 1982 with the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and that policy first is to site permanent repository. I am not ecstatic about, I do not like it, and I wish it were not the case that Yucca Mountain in my own State was chosen. But that is a policy that came down as a result of the things that were done and I believe were highly politicized in terms of the way it was done. But nevertheless that is where we are. Yucca Mountain is being characterized as an interim storage. This legislation would change the existing law, which says that we ought to seek first if a permanent repository can pass muster, is it suitable, before making a determination as to interim storage. This legislation reverses that process and says, in effect, that we will make decisions with respect to interim storage irrespective of what happens with respect to the permanent repository. That makes no sense at all. Finally, I think, just as an admonition, that this has been a very difficult time for Nevada. I believe that it is without precedent in the years that I have been a Member of this body that a State has been so imposed upon, so unconsidered, so rejected of a rational policy argument to acquiesce to the requests of a special interest group--the nuclear utilities in America. But let me say that if we pass S. 104, what a dreadful precedent that may be. No other State can be heard to say thereafter, ``Gee, this is terrible policy for us as it affects my State.'' In effect, we establish a precedent in which a State's rights are imposed upon in which the State's ability to protect its own citizens' health and safety by way of Federal environmental standards being limited, and in which those very basic provisions of the ability to review and get judicial determination before something as horrendous as this is imposed upon a State, are for all intents and purposes emasculated. That is the dreadful policy, and we will rue the day that occurs. So I urge my colleagues to reject S. 104. Let's stay the course. It may not be perfect in every respect, but at least we are moving on a basis of permanent repository in a rational context without getting involved in the emotionalism that has been present with respect to this frantic effort to have interim storage placed at the Nevada test site, a site, as we pointed out, which has not been recommended as a site to be preferred. Never, to the best of my knowledge, has it ever been studied for interim storage, and it was kind of picked out of the air. ``You have Yucca Mountain over there, and Yucca Mountain may take it. So let's put it here.'' That is not a very rational basis to make a policy judgment. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada is correct; 17,000 shipments of approximately 85,000 metric tons, shipments that would occur over a period of several decades. So, in effect, what we would have, wherever you live in America, nuclear waste would be streaming into your community and into your State from virtually every point on the compass, not just for a brief period of time but for decades as contemplated.

Mr. BRYAN. I have never challenged the Senator's math. That was not the subject that I either excelled in or like. But it seems to me that the Senator is right. I remind my senior colleague that we had an accident, as I recall in 1982, in Livingston, LA. If we use a computer model to determine whether the proposed standards of these casks have no problem at all--these are casks not yet in existence but the proposed casks that would be used for this transit--that the temperatures generated in that accident--not a nuclear accident--but the temperatures were so high and so intense for such a long period of time that the cask design would fail. That indicates that there would be a release of radioactivity. That is not a theoretical, or speculative, or conjectural accident. That is one that actually occurred. If one uses a computer model in terms of the standards being proposed for these casks, those casks would have failed. That means those people in that community--I don't know the area--would have been placed at considerable risk for an extended period of time. So, as the Senator is suggesting, multiplying the number of accidents that may occur over the course of several decades, many communities could face that kind of exposure, and that is a legitimate concern, it seems to me, for each of us as we contemplate this very dangerous situation.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I thought I heard the Senator say that if S. 104 is enacted we would have not 109 reactor sites but 110 reactor sites. I invite the Senator's attention looking at this chart. If I understand the point he is trying to make, before S. 104 would be enacted--these would be the various reactor sites--every site prior to its enactment is still there and we add one more at Yucca Mountain, or at the Nevada test site. So we have 110.