Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today the Senate has agreed to pass a very important bill, the False Statements Penalty Restoration Act (H.R. 3166). When Congress originally enacted the False Statements Act, the Federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, to impose felony criminal penalties on an individual who knowingly and willfully makes a false or fraudulent statement, it thought it had created a criminal law that applied to all three branches of Government, including Congress. And since 1955, when the U.S. Supreme Court specifically held that the statute applied to all three branches, this was the law of the land. However, in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the statute did not apply to the judiciary branch, thus creating uncertainty about whether false statements made to Congress and by Members of Congress were now covered by the law. To our constituents, it once again appeared that Members of Congress were a special class to which a particular law did not apply--and that may have been the case. Since the 1995 Supreme Court decision, indictments charging individuals with making knowing and willful false statements on financial disclosure forms and other reports have been dismissed. This situation must not be allowed to continue for one day more. Today's legislation makes clear that Congress is indeed subject to this important law, as it should be. It returns us to where the law was for the last 40 years. As a former chair and vice chair of the Ethics Committee, I know this legislation has particular significance. Without this legislation, there are currently no sanctions for deliberately filing false information in connection with these Federal reporting documents. To ensure the integrity of these reporting requirements, this bill must be enacted so it is very clear there are penalties for knowing and willful violations. This legislation also addresses needed clarification in the obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505. This law makes it a Federal offense to impede or obstruct an investigation of a congressional committee. In 1991, the D.C. District Circuit Court of Appeals held, however, that the statute did not clearly prohibit an individual from personally lying to or obstructing Congress in its investigations. Again, I know first hand from my Senate Ethics Committee experience how this court interpretation risks impairing the ability of the Ethics Committee, and other congressional investigations to maintain any integrity in its proceedings. If a person can lie, or induce another to lie for him without worry of being prosecuted for such action, of what consequence would be any congressional investigation. This legislation corrects the 1991 Supreme Court decision. Any individual who tries to impede a congressional or other governmental investigation, regardless of whether the individual acts on his own, or through the actions of another individual is going to be penalized-- period. I am pleased to support this legislation to remedy these ambiguities in our statutes, and ensure the integrity of Congress' investigations, and the Federal reporting requirements. For the American public, this bill also ensures that no member of Congress is above the law. The following is a more detailed explanation of the changes this legislation will make, and its particular impact on the work of the Senate Ethics Committee, and other congressional investigations. The Federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621, punishes knowing false and material testimony, only if given under oath, such as in formal committee hearings and depositions. The Ethics Committee necessarily uses a variety of other, less formal fact-gathering techniques in the conduct of its initial examinations of complaints and preliminary inquiries, in order to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant receipt of formal testimony through depositions and hearings. It is critical to the Ethics Committee's ability to fulfill its responsibility to the Senate to investigate allegations of misconduct, and to the subjects of allegations to investigate fairly, that the committee's preliminary judgments about potential wrongdoing be based on the most accurate information possible. The availability of a criminal sanction under section 1001 for knowing false and material statements to the committee is an important safeguard to preserve the quality of the committee's investigative functions. The absence of section 1001 liability may push the Ethics Committee to initiate formal proceedings more often, and earlier, than it would otherwise, just to ensure it receives truthful information. This premature heightening of ethics inquiries risks imposing unwarranted and unfair injury to subjects' reputations and unnecessary expense to the Senate. This bill would restore the applicability of section 1001 to false material statements to congressional committees during inquiries. Individuals who have knowingly filed false financial disclosure statements have in the past been convicted of violating the false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's reinterpretation of section 1001 last year, executive branch officials are still subject to punishment for false statements under section 1001, but congressional filers cannot be punished under section 1001 for identical misconduct. While congressional filers may potentially remain subject to sanction under other criminal code provisions, the applicability of these other provisions is untested and uncertain. Members of Congress and their staffs should not receive any possibility of special treatment, but should face the same criminal sanction for their false financial disclosures as other government officials. In addition, the Senate Code of Official Conduct and Federal law require the filing of a number of other reports and disclosure forms under various circumstances. These include reports of the acceptance of gifts from foreign governments, disclosure of employees' reimbursed travel expenses and authorization for such reimbursement, reports of designations of charitable contributions by registered lobbyists or foreign agents in lieu of honoraria, and reports of contributions to and expenditures from legal expense funds, among other matters for which reports or disclosure is required. Without section 1001, there are currently no sanctions for deliberately filing false information in connection with any of these reporting requirements. For these disclosure and reporting requirements to fulfill the purpose for which they were established, there need to be clear penalties for willful violations of the rules by the filing of false reports. The obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505, makes it a Federal offense corruptly to impede or obstruct an investigation of a congressional committee. Historically, this provision has served to safeguard the integrity of congressional inquiries by providing a penalty for individuals who seek to obstruct a proper inquiry. In 1991, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Poindexter case seriously eroded the protection of section 1505 by holding that, as applied to conduct undertaken by an individual witness him/herself, rather than through another individual, the law was unconstitutionally vague to be applied. For a committee like the Senate Ethics Committee, which has the task of finding facts in sensitive and complicated cases involving potential misconduct of Senators, this narrowed interpretation raises serious risks of impairing the integrity of the committee's proceedings. In the case involving former Senator Bob Packwood, the Ethics Committee noted in its report that ``the committee is specifically empowered to obtain evidence from Members and others who are the subject of committee inquiry, and it is entitled to rely on the integrity of such evidence. Indeed, the entire process is compromised and rendered wholly without value if persons subject to the committee's inquiry, or witnesses in an inquiry, are allowed to jeopardize the integrity of evidence coming before the committee.'' [Report at pages 142-43]. For many years, it has been understood that an individual who acts with improper or corrupt purpose to obstruct a committee or other Government investigation, whether by false or misleading testimony, the deliberate destruction or alteration of documents, or other nefarious means, commits wrongdoing subject to punishment under 18 U.S.C. section 1505. Now, after the Poindexter decision, a serious question exists whether an individual who engages in conduct to obstruct an investigation personally, rather than by persuading someone else to do so, may be called to account for such unacceptable conduct under section 1505. It is my firm conviction that Congress has already acted legislatively through the present language of section 1505 to criminalize this conduct. However, since at least one court was apparently unclear on what Congress had in mind, it is important that we provide explicit guidance in the law so clear that no confusion will arise in the future. This bill would correct the court's nonsensical interpretation of section 1505 by making clear that the statute prohibits witnesses from engaging with improper purpose in any of the variety of means by which individuals may seek to impede a congressional or other governmental investigation, whether doing so personally or through another individual, and whether by making false or misleading statements or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying documents sought by congressional committees and other investigative bodies. The Senate subpoena enforcement statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1365, provides the mechanism for Senate committees to go to court to seek assistance from the court in enforcing compliance with a subpoena of the committee. This system, which was enacted in 1978, permits a committee seeking necessary testimony or documents to apply to court, with the Senate's authorization, so that the witness may present his/ her privilege or other basis not to comply with the Senate subpoena. If the court sustains the committee's position, it may order the witness to comply with the subpoena and thereby enable the committee to obtain the information it needs in a timely and fair manner. Over the past 20 years, the availability of this system has proven extremely beneficial to Senate committees, including the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee utilized this process to obtain a judicial ruling on Senator Packwood's objections to providing portions of his diaries to the committee. In that case, the courts upheld the committee's position and Senator Packwood was ordered to turn over his diary materials, subject to the masking of privileged and personal information, which the committee respected. The process worked well and enabled the committee to obtain the evidence it needed to complete its responsibilities to the Senate and the public. An ambiguity in the current statute, however, periodically threatens the ability of this salutary system to work to resolve controversies between Senate committees and witnesses. When the enforcement law was enacted, an exception was carved out for privilege assertions by the executive branch, so that the courts would not be called on to resolve disputes between the two political branches of Government. The drafting of that exception left some unfortunate doubt, however, as to its applicability when a witness who happened to be employed by the Federal Government was asserting a personal privilege or objection to a Senate subpoena, not a governmental privilege. The law was never intended to exclude such cases from judicial resolution and there is no good reason for so doing. The ambiguity has created questions in some cases as to whether or not the Senate could utilize the civil enforcement mechanism to obtain judicial assistance with one of its committees' subpoenas. Even in the example, I described involving Senator Packwood, a question could have arisen whether, because he was a Senator, and, therefore, a Government officer, the exception precluded judicial enforcement of the Ethics Committee subpoena. Senator Packwood did not make such an argument, and the court did accept jurisdiction over the case. However, the mere possibility of such a jurisdictional issue's arising creates an impediment to the swift and sure resolution of disputes over the entitlement of Senate committees to information they need. In the context of an important and sensitive ethics investigation, the risk of such a situation arising in the midst of an investigation is unacceptable. This bill would clarify section 1365 to make clear that the Senate may authorize committees to go to court to resolve subpoena disputes, whether with private individuals or Government employees, as long as the witness is raising a personal privilege or objection, rather than governmental privilege. The final clarification in the bill involves the congressional immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. section 6005. Senate committees have power to confer use immunity, by vote of two-thirds of their membership, to compel witnesses to testify notwithstanding an assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege. Committees properly immunize witnesses very sparingly, only when they determine that receiving the testimony is necessary to the committee's task and that the possible adverse effect on future criminal prosecution is tolerable. Following the D.C. Circuit's decision in the North case, in particular, committees are on notice that conferral of use immunity to receive testimony in public hearings subject to television broadcast may have a dramatic impact on the ability of a prosecution to obtain a conviction for criminal wrongdoing. Since the North decision, Senate committees have proceeded exceedingly cautiously before agreeing to grant use immunity to a witness. There are occasions, nonetheless, when immunity is appropriate and necessary to receive testimony from an essential witness. In such circumstances, committees have properly conferred use immunity. This has happened in the Senate on a total of 10 occasions since the North decision. All but 1 of these instances--that is, 9 times out of the 10--were in the context of Ethics Committee investigations, when immunity was necessary to obtain information about allegations of wrongdoing by a Senator. One of the tools that the Ethics Committee has used in these instances in order to help make sure that there are not adverse repercussions on criminal prosecutions is its authority to receive the immunized testimony in private session, as in staff depositions. Indeed, eight of the nine witnesses who were immunized for testimony at staff depositions, not at public hearings. This procedure enables the Committee to receive information that it needs, but to do so in a forum that does not run the risk of spreading a witness' immunized testimony across the nation's television screens. Unfortunately, the technical drafting of the immunity statute has apparently left a question in some people's minds as to whether the Senate's immunity poser extends to authorized staff depositions, or only to committee hearings. This was raised as a serious problem in the Iran-Contra investigation and any committee that ever seeks to receive testimony under immunity in a deposition runs the risk of the issue being raised there to block the testimony. The Ethics Committee is the committee that bears the greatest chance of facing this impediment in the future. Accordingly, this bill contains a very simple, but important, amendment to make clear that the congressional immunity statute covers ancillary proceedings, like staff depositions, as well as committee hearings. Immunity still would be conferred only on a two-thirds vote of the full committee, and would be done so sparingly. However, with this change, there will be no questions that committees would be able to compel immunized testimony at staff depositions, rather than being forced to receive the testimony in a committee hearing, where it could possibly later taint a criminal prosecution.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996 introduced by Senators Bill Bradley, Nancy Kassebaum, and Bill Frist. This bipartisan legislation--with the support of 52 Senate cosponsors--will help ensure that newborns and their mothers will have the best possible beginning. Unfortunately, a pattern has begun to develop throughout this country of pushing mothers and their newborns out of the hospital too quickly. Too often, some health insurance plans covering the costs of childbirth offer very limited benefits for post partum hospital stays. Sometimes the coverage is limited to as little as 24 hours, which in many cases is not long enough to ensure that a mother and her infant remain healthy after their hospital discharge. Sometimes doctors have found that insurers refuse to agree to longer hospital stays, even when the doctor argues the mother and newborn need to remain in the hospital longer. It is the first couple of days following the birth of a child that are the most critical to ensure the long-term health of both the infant and mother. Many mothers have difficulty in learning how to properly breast feed, putting their infants at risk of inadequate nutrition in their first days of life. Likewise some mothers are just not physically capable of providing for a newborn's care needs within 24 hours of giving birth. Medically, many health problems experienced by newborns do not show up until after the first 24 hours of life. These include jaundice and dehydration, and other conditions that only health professionals can detect. Early hospital discharges can mean these conditions go undetected until it is too late. The length of a hospital stay is a question that should not be driven by the limitations of an insurance policy, but should be the joint medical decision of the mother and her physician. Under this bill, if both the mother and her doctor agree that a shorter post partum stay is acceptable, the stay can be shortened. However, in these situations--and this is the key distinction--the decision will still be a medical one, rather than a financial one. This bill will require all health care insurance plans, which offer maternity benefits, to cover post-partum stays of at least 48 hours after a vaginal birth, and at least 96 hours after a caesarean section. The bill's hospital stay requirements are consistent with post childbirth guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. This bill will end these drive-through baby deliveries, which push mothers and their newborns out of the hospital before they are medically ready to go home. Such drive-through deliveries put the health of both mothers and their babies at risk. A mother and her newborn's homecoming should be a time of celebration, not a time of trepidation because neither was ready to leave the hospital. In August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its study of New Jersey's maternity stay law. Following enactment of The State's law, the CDC found that new mothers who had problem free deliveries were the mothers who had stayed in the hospital approximately 10 to 12 hours longer than mothers had prior to the law. The CDC research appears to indicate that just a few hours longer in the hospital can result in major improvements in the health of both the mother and the newborn baby. The importance of those few more hours cannot be underestimated. Many managed care plans place the care of the mother and newborn infant at the forefront. But many other managed care plans appear to have put the bottomline of profitability ahead of the real medical needs of newborns and their mothers. Those managed care plans should view this bill as a heads up. Cutting medical costs will not be allowed to undermine the quality of health care. We all acknowledge the need for controlling health care costs, and support efforts to curtail unnecessary spending. But there also must be a reality check when cost cutting goes so far, that the quality of health care is endangered. We want every newborn child to have the best chance for long-term health. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation to give mothers and newborns the assurance that their health needs will always be paramount.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. On whose time is the Senator from Alaska responding?

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator. I call my colleagues' attention to this. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Department of Energy and the utilities entered into a contract. It is the contractual liability that becomes the issue as a result of the court's decision that the senior Senator from Louisiana referenced. Under the contract provision, the remedy is spelled out. If the delays are unavoidable, there is no liability in a financial sense. The schedule for receiving shipment is adjusted accordingly. If it is determined that the Department of Energy has been responsible for the delay, an adjustment is made with respect to the fees that are paid into the nuclear waste trust fund. So those are the remedies that are provided. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for yielding me time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. Mr. President, I believe it will be helpful for our colleagues and staffs listening in, because these two amendments have been described in the abstract. I acknowledge and confess that it has been a number of years since I attended law school, but I must say, not even a flyspeck lawyer could make a meaningful distinction between these two provisions. Let me read them, because they are quite simple. Under the language of the amendment that was offered earlier today and was approved by the body, section 501 deals with compliance with other laws. So here is the present state of the legislation as we debate it. It is only a couple of paragraphs, so I think it important it be understood: If the requirements of any law are inconsistent with or duplicative of the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and this Act, the Secretary shall comply only with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and this Act in implementing the integrated management system. Any requirement of a State or political subdivision of a State is preempted (1) if complying with such requirement and a requirement of this Act is impossible; (2) that such requirement, as applied or enforced, is an obstacle to accomplishing or carrying out this Act or regulation under this Act. So, in effect, what the bill currently does is it bifurcates, it makes reference to Federal laws and then it talks about State preemption. But the operative language with respect to Federal law under the current state of the bill is that if any requirement of any law is inconsistent with the provisions of this act, it shall not apply. By any plain reading of the language that is contained, any reasonable interpretation, that is, in point of fact, a Federal preemption. The second part of the existing bill deals specifically with State preemption and has those two provisions. If it is impossible, then you don't have to comply with it and, second, if it is an obstacle to accomplishing or carrying out the act, you don't have to comply with it. Here is the so-called amendment that changes all of that, that solves it that deals with the issue. Section 501, which is the amendment offered by our friend from Alaska, says as follows: If the requirement of any Federal, State or local law, including a requirement imposed by regulation or by any other means under such law, are inconsistent with or duplicative to the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act or of this Act, the Secretary shall comply only with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and this Act in implementing the integrated management system. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, it could not be clearer. One does not have to go to law school to understand that if any other provision of the law is inconsistent with this bill, it does not apply. What provisions are we talking about? We are talking about the entire framework of the environmental laws in America that have been enacted since the early 1970's. And lest this debate be deemed to be of a partisan nature--and I assure my colleagues it is not--many of those provisions were enacted under the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Here is what we wipe out: If, for example, the Clean Air Act is inconsistent with the bill that we are going to be asked to vote on for final passage later on today, the entire Clean Air Act does not apply. If the Clean Water Act has any provision that is inconsistent with the provisions of this act, it does not apply. If the Superfund law has any provision inconsistent with the provisions of the bill that we are being asked to vote on, it does not apply. If the National Environmental Policy Act contains any provision that is inconsistent with the provisions of the bill that we are going to be asked to vote on, it does not apply. If FLPMA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, has any provision inconsistent with this bill, it does not apply. Think about that for a moment. This is truly a nuclear utility's dream. In effect, these provisions that are the framework of our environmental policy in America, most of which have been enacted over the past two decades, that none of these, not a one, not one has any force of law whatsoever if it is deemed to be in conflict with the provisions of this act. I know that a number of my colleagues have been persuaded, and I regret that fact, that there is a great urgency and imperative to move nuclear waste. This is all, in my opinion, part of a fabricated, as the Washington Post concluded, contrived argument. They have been at this now for 16 years. If we were looking at the Congressional Record of this very week in 1980, my colleagues, I think, would be surprised, because the thrust of the argument is identical: ``Hey, we've got to have this, we've got to have it right away. Waive the acts, waive the laws, we have to get this going.'' In point of fact, I call this to my colleagues' attention. Congressional Record, July 28, 1980, 16 years ago: Mr. President, this bill deals comprehensively with the problem of civilian nuclear waste. That sounds familiar. It is an urgent problem-- That kind of sounds familiar, too, doesn't it? Mr. President, for this Nation. It is urgent, first, because we are running out of reactor space at reactors for storage of the fuel, and if we do not build what we call away-from- reactor storage-- That is a little different. We call it interim storage now, but away- from-reactor storage is the same basic concept-- and begin that soon, we could begin shutting down civilian nuclear reactors in this country as soon as 1983, those predictions coming from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy. That is 1980. As of 1983, 13 years ago, not a single nuclear utility in America has shut down because it has run out of space. So when we use ``contrived'' and ``fabricated,'' that is precisely the language to describe it. That is why every environmental organization in America that I am aware of has examined the preemption sections and have concluded that it would be bad, bad public policy. From the Sierra Club to public- interest groups to Citizen Awareness to the League of Conservation Voters, and many, many more. So I hear my colleagues often talk about this, the proponents of this bill, that this is an important piece of environmental legislation. Let me be clear. This is an important piece of environmental legislation, yes, because it would be a disaster repealing, by implication and by expressed language, all of the provisions that have been enacted for more than a quarter of a century as it relates to this process. So that is why in a letter that has been sent to the Democratic leader, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ms. Browner, has specifically referenced the fact that this would be a preemption. I quote her letter when she indicates: EPA is also concerned with provisions of S. 1936 and the substitute amendments-- The one that we are addressing right now-- which preempt the environmental protections provided by other environmental statutes. Section 501 in the bill and amendment preempts all Federal, state, and local environmental laws applicable to the Yucca Mountain facility if they are inconsistent with or duplicative of the [specific piece of legislation we are talking about]. So I think that the colleagues who want to say to themselves, well, in this debate who has more credibility with respect to whether or not this is preemption? The agency under the law, the Environmental Protection Agency's Administrator has been very clear. It is clearly a preemption. The environmental organizations in America who have looked at this all have concluded that it is a preemption and, for that reason, would be an environmental disaster. But may I say, just plain ordinary English, just read it. It could not be clearer. ``If the requirements of any Federal, State, or local law (including a requirement imposed by regulation or by any other means under such a law) are inconsistent with or duplicative of the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act * * * or of this Act, the Secretary shall comply only''--only--``with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act * * * and of this Act * * *.'' So, Mr. President, I think it is beyond refutation, beyond argument. Why is that important? My colleague from Nevada, in a moment, will expand upon one aspect of that, and that is the transportation issue. Let me just say, to give a little flavor of this, that it is contemplated, under this piece of legislation that would create an interim storage facility, that 85,000 metric tons of fuel would be shipped from existing commercial reactors and transported to the Nevada test site in Nevada. That is about 6,200 shipments by truck, about 9,400 by rail. Some have indicated those numbers understate the amount. Each truck cask weighs 25 tons, each rail cask up to 125 tons. Each rail cask--that is the one that is 125 tons--contains the radiological equivalent, in terms of long-life radiation, of 200 Hiroshima bombs. So when we refer to this as a ``mobile Chernobyl,'' this nuclear waste is rolling through your community. My colleague will address that in more detail. Fifty-one million Americans live within 1 mile of one of the rail or highway transportation routes that would be involved in the transshipment of these 85,000 metric tons. I may say that my friend from a previous life--the distinguished occupant of the chair--his State knows well the circumstance because his predecessors, in the aftermath of Three Mile Island, were very much involved in a debate because much of that waste would have gone through the St. Louis metropolitan area. I just say that the transportation route which I know my friend fully understands contemplates 6,000 shipments that will move through St. Louis, just to cite one particular State and a large metropolitan area that would be exposed to this risk. Let me just repeat, before yielding to my colleague, that each one of those rail casks, 125 tons, with the radioactive equivalent of 200 Hiroshima-sized bombs--now, admittedly, the truck casks are slightly different; they are 25 tons--so let us say that each one of those shipments roughly would contain the equivalent of 40 Hiroshima-sized bombs in terms of the amount of long-lived nuclear radiation that would be involved. So when we are talking about preempting all of these laws, this is not just a law school or academic or esoteric issue. This is something that has been designed by Democrats and Republicans alike over a quarter of a century and is designed to protect Americans everywhere-- everywhere. We are talking about 43 States that would be involved in this transportation route. So I know that many of our colleagues have heard our arguments and are perhaps weary of them. But let me urge them to look at these preemption provisions. They are antienvironment. They are opposed by every environmental organization in America. We are not just talking about some technical, abstract proposition. We are talking about the full panoply of environmental laws designed to protect all Americans. Very clearly, what the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska would do, it would do the same, in my view, as the language in the present bill and simply say that, if any of these provisions conflict in any way with the provisions of this act, they simply are to be ignored and set aside. I reserve the remainder of my time, and yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator. Let me respond briefly. The Senator from Idaho was unable to respond to my question because of time limitations, but he was going on at some length as to why the Senators from Nevada would insist that there, in effect, be a duplicative experience when the law already covered it. A point I want to make very emphatically is the Senator from Idaho is quoting from only a part of the preemption language. The preemption language, in effect, says that if the requirements of any Federal, State, or local law are inconsistent with--inconsistent with--or duplicative. So the point I made, I think, is a telling one and one that is irrefutable, in my opinion, namely that all of these environmental laws that we talked about, if there is a conflict, do not apply. I must say that in terms of public policy, putting aside one's view for the moment of how you feel about nuclear waste and any urgency that may or may not be present, what a disastrous public policy it is to wipe out the environmental laws, and that is why every environmental organization has opposed this language and that is why the Environmental Protection Agency has strongly resisted it. Let me talk a moment about the casks, and we will talk a lot more about transportation later on in this debate. The senior Senator from Louisiana cites the numbers that have been shipped around the country. I am sure he is absolutely accurate. But we are talking about something of a scale and dimension unprecedented anywhere in the world--85,000 metric tons, 16,000 shipments. We are not talking about 100. We are talking about 16,000 shipments. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission claims that the cask design will fail in 6 of every 1,000 rail accidents. Built into this, the laws of probability tell us that with the heightened and elevated volume, you are going to have an accident and a failure. Finally, I would just like to say with respect to the casks, what has driven this entire debate about nuclear waste over the years is how to do it cheaper, how to do it faster. That is where the nuclear utilities are coming from. And so the new casks that are going to be used to store this have not yet been designed and they will be less expensive and subject to less rigorous standards.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, let me respond. It is true some citizens of Caliente embraced this. From the time of the Old Testament, there are some who are prepared to forfeit their birthright for a pottage of lentils. I must say, I believe my friends and neighbors in Caliente, those who have advocated this project, are misled and misadvised. I simply point out if 286 becomes the standard, I am sure we could get 286 Alaskans or Louisianians or others to embrace this. It is part of the nuclear energy industry's attempt to, in effect, buy it. Caliente is a wonderful community. It has endured tremendous hardship in recent years. When I was Governor they wanted to have an incinerator and import hazardous wastes to be incinerated. These are folks who are absolutely desperate. I vetoed that legislation. The present Governor has done similarly. I understand and sympathize with the economic plight of my fellow Nevadans who live in Caliente, but I must say they have been used and badly used by the nuclear industry with this promise about putting a little money out. For my senior colleague and I, this is not about money, this is about public health and safety of 1.8 million people, and there can be no compromise on that issue. That represents the broad public view in Nevada. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. How much time does my friend require?

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, we have just a little time left.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I say to my colleague that this is on my time. How much time is left?

Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator uses his own time, I have no problem with it. But I am not prepared to yield any more time.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement of the senior Senator from North Dakota, his expression of concern about the vulnerability that we have to terrorism. It is a fact of life in 20th century America. All of us apprehend, lament, and regret it, but it is a very real fact. I must say, just as the bad guys in the Old West always knew where the stagecoach was most vulnerable--it was not when it was at the office; it was not when it was being unloaded at the bank--it was out on the road, so too when we are talking about thousands and thousands of miles of rail and highway shipments. There are so many places that a terrorist could find a point of vulnerability. The concerns that my colleague from North Dakota mentioned I believe are very real and very genuine, so I thank him very much for his explanation. Let me just make one other point here. It is something we constantly hear about, that this bill will result automatically in not 109 sites but 1 site. Mr. President, that is just absolutely false, absolutely false. Each of the nuclear reactors that are currently generating power have spent fuel rods contained in the pools. They remain there at least for 5 years. If we assume that every reactor in the country is going to close, which is certainly not the predicate of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under the current existing licenses some nuclear utilities would remain open at least until the year 2033. So all this bill would do in terms of concentrating storage would add not 109 but you would have 110 sites, namely the new facility that they have proposed to construct at the Nevada test site for interim storage. So this ad, I know, the nuclear utilities love. They spend millions of dollars in advertisements in magazines and publications that give one the impression, wow, if we just opened up this facility at the Nevada test site there will not be nuclear waste stored any place in the country. That is wrong. May I inquire as to how much more time the Senator from Nevada has?

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 5075 (Purpose: To specify contractual obligations between DOE and waste generators)

Mr. BRYAN. I send an amendment numbered 5075 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. That is correct. We are not requesting that a rollcall vote occur with respect to amendment 5075.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me just take a moment because this deals with a provision that we believe clarifies the situation in light of the court decision over which most comment has been had. What this amendment does is simply incorporate into the bill provisions that exist in the contract. My colleagues will recall that under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Department of Energy was directed to enter into contracts with the various utilities that were involved in generating high-level nuclear waste, and so what we have done, my colleague and I from Nevada, is to have incorporated verbatim other than perhaps in the context there may be some grammatical changes, but verbatim the remedies that are provided in those contracts. They are found in article 9 of the contract, and the contract provides what occurs if a delay, referring to the delay of the opening of the repository, is unavoidable delay, and subparagraph (b) deals with avoidable delays. So there has been talk that somehow this court case now casts a different light on everything, and as the Secretary of Energy indicated in her letter to each of us, that case absolutely has no impact on the debate. It is true that the court indicated there was an obligation on the Department of Energy but refrained from determining what the remedy was, and it is our view that the remedy is contained in the contract that the parties entered into. So we offer the amendment in that spirit. I must say that I believe one of the biggest scams being perpetrated upon us in this bill is the provision which deals with the shifting of liability from the utilities to the general taxpayer. Mr. President, 1982 is the genesis of our current nuclear waste policy. It was absolutely clear at the time that law was enacted that the financial responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste rested upon the utilities, those that generated it. ``Generators, owners of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel have the primary responsibility to provide for and the responsibility to pay the costs of interim storage of such waste and spent fuel until such time as the fuel is accepted by the Secretary of Energy.'' And then it goes on to talk about a number of instances throughout this particular act that it is the primary responsibility of the industry, the utilities. Mr. President, this bill that has been introduced turns that concept upside down, totally upside down. Here is what is done under section 501 of the amendment that we are debating currently. It says that until the year 2002--I beg your pardon. I misquoted. I cited 501. It is section 401. It says until the year 2002, the maximum that can be assessed against the utilities, which is done on the basis of kilowatt- hours generated --one mill currently is the assessment for each kilowatt-hour. It says under this bill by statute now the maximum that can be levied against utilities is one mill. The General Accounting Office and others have concluded that even if no interim storage is added to the agenda or the responsibility of the Department of Energy, we are currently underfunded to the extent of about $4 billion a year. In plain and simple terms, that means the American taxpayer is going to pick up that liability, that responsibility, and that is fundamentally wrong. However you feel about nuclear energy, however you feel about how nuclear waste ought to be disposed of, it ought not to be cast upon the American taxpayer. These utilities are private sector utilities. They make a substantial amount of money. That is their right. But it ought not to be shifted on us. So I think that needs to be pointed out, No. 1. No. 2, it gets even more clever. After the year 2002, the only amount that can be assessed against each utility is whatever their proportionate cost is, to the total amount of money that is appropriated by the Congress for nuclear waste. If we use the current year, for example, we would be talking about a third of a mill. That is something that is just, in my view, unconscionable. Not only has the General Accounting Office concluded there is a shortfall, but in a recent study that was commissioned by the Department called A Special Management and Financial Review, a report that came out in 1995, they point out that there is a shortfall, depending on whether you take a conservative or more expansive view, of anywhere from $4 to $15 billion. So what is being done here is changing fundamentally who pays for this disposal of nuclear waste. Is it the utilities? That was the original premise of the law in 1982. These are private utilities, generating profits for their investors and shareholders. Or is that liability now to be shifted to the general taxpayer? That is what this bill does, it shifts that liability because it is clear, even if you take the length of time without renewal at all, these utilities will ultimately, by the year 2033, if the licenses are not extended, those utilities will cease generating electrical power. Therefore they will cease contributing into the fund. But the problem of the storage of high-level nuclear waste continues. It is, to some extent, a crude analogy to the situation we have with our Social Security fund. Currently, more money is coming into that fund than is necessary to pay the recipients of Social Security. We all know sometime after the turn of the century, because of changing demographics, that changes rather dramatically. So, too, with this nuclear waste fund because, as these utilities go off line, some of them are scheduled, if they do not get an extension of their license, to cease operation in the year 2000, others in the year 2006 and, intermediately to the year 2033--but the waste just does not disappear. It becomes a financial responsibility for someone and that is why it is necessary to generate surpluses in the nuclear waste fund in order to deal with the storage problem later on. So I think my colleagues need to look at the budget implications of this. Because, in effect, we create an unfunded liability for the Federal taxpayers the way this bill is currently drafted. Let me return to the specifics of the amendment just one more time before reserving my time and yielding whatever time my colleague may take to comment on this issue. That is to say, what we are saying amplifies the decision of the court, simply specifying what the remedy is. The remedy is that the delay is unavoidable. They simply have to reschedule the shipments. If the delay is deemed avoidable, that is if there is some culpability, then there is readjustment on the amount of fees the nuclear utilities pay into the trust fund. I must say I believe that is fair. My colleague and I, from Nevada, have long recognized that, indeed, if the high-level nuclear waste repository is not available by the year 1998, if additional on-site storage is necessitated, then, indeed, the utilities would be entitled to a credit against any additional costs for interim storage that they would incur, and that is the thrust of this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, much has been said over the past few hours today and earlier during the course of our discussion of S. 1936 about what I consider one of the most serious defects of this piece of legislation in that it emasculates the environmental protections that have been drafted for more than a quarter of a century, most of which with bipartisan support and in effect says with respect to this particular issue they shall not apply. So what we are doing is we are giving people an opportunity, our colleagues an opportunity, to express themselves on the environmental issue, very, very simple. The first part of this amendment says: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary shall comply with all Federal laws and regulations in developing and implementing the integrated management system. My colleagues will recall the section 501 under the current provisions, as amended, is very convoluted and says: If the requirements of any Federal, State, or local law (including a requirement imposed by regulation or by any other means under such a law) are inconsistent with or duplicative of the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act . . . or of this Act, the Secretary shall comply only with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and of this Act. . . . This Mr. President, makes it very, very clear. If you do not want all of these environmental laws preempted, this is the way to correct it. Straightforward, no ifs, ands, or buts: Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the Secretary shall comply with all Federal laws and regulations in developing and implementing the integrated management system. I note for my colleagues, because the two Senators from Nevada have been involved in this issue now for the last 14 years, we made a policy judgment not to include State law so it could not be asserted that this was an indirect effort to allow the Nevada legislature to implement some type of barrier that would make this impossible. So this is straightforward. It does not get any cleaner, it does not get any clearer, and does not get any easier to understand. If you are truly opposed to preempting all of these laws, this is the amendment that does it. If you also believe that there is a purpose in America for the National Environmental Policy Act, this amendment provides for the full application and judicial review. Under the current bill the provisions say on the one hand that the Environmental Policy Act will apply, and then go on to say at some considerable length, but it shall not apply to the various citing alternatives. I will provide that. Section 204, subsection (f) says the National Environmental Policy Act shall apply. Then you get down into subsection (B). Such Environmental Impact Statement shall not consider -- (i) the need for interim storage. . . (ii) the time of the initial availability of the interim storage. . . (iii) any alternatives to the storage of [nuclear waste]. * * * * * (v) any alternatives to the design criteria. . . (vi) the environmental impacts of the storage [beyond the period of initial licensure]. You will recall the National Academy of Sciences said those should consider 10,000 years and beyond. This bill would limit it to just the period of time of the initial licensure. And so, Mr. President, this is a clean, straightforward attempt to say that the full array of provisions under the National Environmental Policy Act shall apply. Let me just say that the Council on Environmental Quality--that is the council that was established when Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969-- went on to say--and I quote from the letter. ``S. 1936''--that is essentially what we are dealing with: S. 1936 renders the NEPA process meaningless by precluding the incorporation of NEPA's core values which are necessary for making informed and timely decisions essential for protecting public health, safety and environmental quality. Consequently, the bill all but locks into place both interim and permanent storage sites by giving decisionmakers no reasonable options * * * It is that same rationale that has caused the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to point out that in effect we do not have the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act under the provisions of the bill as now constituted. So, Mr. President, I think we can make this very clear and very simple. If Senators want these environmental laws to apply, if they believe that the Environmental Policy Act ought to be applicable to this very critical decision, in which we all agree that we are dealing with material that is not just kind of messy, kind of unpleasant, to be a little bit difficult and inconvenient to clean up, we are talking about stuff that is deadly for tens of thousands of years, the highest kind of risk to public health and safety. Yet, the nuclear industry, and its supporters, have the audacity to emasculate the application of the environmental laws and in effect try to reduce the impact of the National Environmental Policy Act to a hollow and pale facsimile of what the law provides in terms of protections for various policy initiatives, et cetera. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I, at this point, will allocate myself 10 minutes of that time and ask the Chair to inform me when I have used that. Madam President, it has been a number of weeks we have been discussing the high-level nuclear waste issue. And I think it is time to put this into some perspective. In 1980, some 16 years ago, debate on the floor of the Senate indicated that there was a great urgency and immediacy to take action, that there was a crisis, that indeed, if nothing were done, if we did not get the interim storage, what was called MRS storage, nuclear reactors around the country would have to shut down by 1983. I offer that interesting piece of history as a footnote because the debate today is in almost identical respect the same debate that occurred this very week on July 28, 1980. This is a contrived and fabricated crisis. Let me begin by pointing out what the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board--this is a board that was created by act of Congress in 1987. And the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has concluded that there is no need for interim storage at this time. And that is a conclusion which they have endorsed. Anyone who has any question about it, this is the document. So all of this debate is at best premature and in our view totally unnecessary. When you look at the substance of the legislation, what is occurring is an absolute travesty. The major environmental provisions that protected Americans with bipartisan support for more than 2 decades are simply wiped out, simply wiped out. We have just had a debate. The National Environmental Policy Act, designed to apply to circumstances such as this, for all intents and purposes, has been eviscerated by the nuclear utilities in their zeal to get interim storage. Let me just cite two specific references. Among the things that the Environmental Policy Act would ordinarily consider would be the environmental impacts of the storage of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste for the period of foreseeable danger --thousands of years. This piece of legislation would restrict the application of NEPA, the Environmental Policy Act, to the initial term of licensure of about 30 years. Nothing has occurred to date that would establish a design criteria for such facility. Ordinarily the Environmental Policy Act would consider the alternatives to the design criteria. That is now wiped out. NEPA cannot consider design criteria, cannot consider the application for longer periods of time of health hazards. So we have a major piece of environmental legislation wiped out. Preemption. The amendment offered by our friends from the other side has put us in the situation in which all Federal laws that are inconsistent with this act are wiped out. And we have gone through a whole litany of them. We have the National Environmental Policy Act, FLPMA, clean air, clean water, all of those, if they are inconsistent, they do not apply. So forget environmental laws when it comes to siting an interim storage. That is simply an outrage, Madam President, no matter how one feels about nuclear energy or whether one believes there ought to be some type of interim storage. With respect to standards, nowhere in the world--nowhere --is a radioactive standard of 100 millirems established by statute--nowhere. And 100 millirems would be at least 24 times the standard for the safe drinking water, would be at least six times-plus the standard set for the WIPP facility. I must say, this is all laid out right here. So, 100 millirems. Why in God's name, for the most dangerous stuff on the face of the Earth, would we mandate by statute a 100-millirem standard, and then say to the EPA, well, you know, if you can prove that that is unsafe, then you can change it. We do not do that. I mean, if this were a straight-up deal, if this were not some contrived wish list by the nuclear utilities, the EPA would be designated as finding a standard and establishing it. No other place in the world. The National Academy of Sciences was asked in a piece of legislation approved in 1992--the energy bill--was asked to come back and make a report with respect to a standard. And what they said is that the safety standard, in terms of radioactive exposure--this is the ``Technical Bases For Yucca Mountain Standards.'' This is the product of the National Academy of Sciences. And what they said is, it should be somewhere between 10 and 30 millirems. How can you justify it? How can you justify that? And indeed when you look at the Environmental Protection Agency, here is what our Administrator tells us. S. 1936 and the substitute amendments establish a Congressionally set overall performance standard of 100 millirems a year to the average person in the general vicinity of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository for 1000 years. Although the substitute amendments allow EPA to challenge the 100 millirem a year standard, EPA believes the standard is inappropriate because it is less protective than other U.S. standards and international advisory board recommendations for a single source. Furthermore . . . the actual risk to public health and the environment will occur well after 1,000 years. . . . And the limitation that is imposed in this legislation applies only to 1,000 years. So again, public health and safety be dammed. Anything that helps the nuclear utilities, that is what we are going to buy into. Madam President, that is just an absolutely indefensible matter of public policy. I must say that no other place in the world establishes such a standard. We are frequently cited to the international sanctioning bodies. And although 100 millirems is referenced in those standards, never is it referenced for single source. It indicates here that most other countries have endorsed the principle of apportionment of the total allowed radiation dose. So no-- no--standards that exist in the world, to the best of our knowledge, would propose 100 millirems from a single source. Finally, on the standards issue, I must say, clearly what drives that decision, as well as every provision in this bill, is to make it easier to lower public health and safety standards, to make it less costly. And the public health, and the consequences of those persons, would be effectively by and large ignored. My colleague is going to talk a good bit about transportation, but we are talking about 85,000 metric tons. We are talking about 16,000 shipments or more, traveling across the rail corridors in America, as well as our highway system, and 51 million Americans live within 1 mile of that. Each of those railroad casks weigh 125 tons, and the consequence of the hazardous cargo in terms of radioactivity would be the equivalent of 200 bombs dropped at Hiroshima. We are not just talking about Nevadans at risk. If you ship it by way of cask and highway cargo, you are talking about the equivalent of 40 bombs. Finally, and we have tried to make this point albeit it is a difficult thing to explain, in effect this is a financial bailout of the nuclear power industry. Since the very enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, its fundamental premise has been that the utilities are the ones that get the profit, they are the ones that generate the waste, they have the financial responsibility. Through a series of significant changes, albeit somewhat subtle, a cap or a ceiling or a limitation is placed on the amount that the utilities will be required to contribute. Now, to the year 2002, it is 1 mill based upon each kilowatt of power generated. After the year 2002, it will become no more than the amount of the appropriation each year. In 2003, we would be talking one-third of a mill, the balance all left to the taxpayer to pick up. Madam President, I simply say, No. 1, this debate is unnecessary, this bill is unnecessary, and that comes from a body of eminent scientists impaneled as a result of legislation enacted by this body. The National Environmental Policy Act is, in effect, gutted as a consequence of the restrictions placed upon it. All other Federal environmental laws are preempted. The standards that are set are so high as to constitute a clear and present danger to public health and safety. The Environmental Protection Agency agrees, as do others. Ultimately the taxpayer, not the utility, will pick up the bill if this bill becomes law. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of preliminary observations. Our good friend, the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, rose this morning to express his strong support for this legislation. I say with great affection and great respect that the irony of his position could not have been more acute. In this morning's Energy Daily, we read that the State of South Carolina, the State that he has so ably represented and defended since 1954, has filed suit against the Department of Energy because they are concerned about safety standards as it relates to the shipment of foreign nuclear fuel into the State of South Carolina. I guess I would have to repeat, Mr. President, an old expression that I think would be understood down home: ``What's sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.'' I respect and greatly admire the Senator's concern about the health and safety of his own State. I just wish he shared that same perspective in terms of the health and safety of the entire Nation, because that is one of the principal objections we have to this piece of legislation. Let me in the time that I have try to address the issues that were so fundamental to the debate in S. 1936, because, as my senior colleague has pointed out, with respect to the core issues nothing has changed. There has been some language that has been massaged, but nothing has been changed. Let me take my colleagues for a great leap through the bill itself. We have expressed strong opposition, not on behalf of Nevada but on behalf of the Nation, to a piece of legislation that would effectively emasculate major pieces of the environmental legislation that affects all Americans. The National Environmental Policy Act provides the framework for making major policy decisions that affect the environment, and nobody denies that the legislation before us, the siting of an interim storage facility, has profound implications in terms of its impact. So here is what we have in the act itself under section 204. OK, first of all, and I paraphrase, it says, ``The National Environmental Policy Act shall apply.'' That is like saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights shall apply. And then it goes on to say that such environmental impact statements shall not consider the need for interim storage, the time of the initial availability of interim storage, any alternatives to the storage, any alternatives to design criteria, the environmental impacts of the storage beyond the initial term. We are talking about something that lasts tens of thousands of years, and they are talking about something that would be limited to the initial term of the license, which is a matter of years. Then they go on to deprive the court of jurisdiction to review the environmental impact statement as it is being developed, and then goes on to say, in what is the height of arrogance--our colleagues have railed against the costs that have been incurred over the years in seeking a solution to the disposition of high-level nuclear waste. Much of those costs have been incurred as a result of unrealistic time lines generated by the zeal of the nuclear utility industry in America. The storage of interim waste has been for more than 30 years their Holy Grail. That is what they want, and the only reason we are having this debate today is because the nuclear utilities want interim storage. But the irony and the ultimate travesty that I refer to is, after talking about the environmental policy act, it goes on to say none of the activities carried out pursuant to this paragraph shall delay or otherwise affect the development or construction, licensing or operation. So, yes, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by way of analogy would apply, but the amendments that all of us rely upon for our protection, by way of analogy, would not apply here. So far as the contention has been made that there has been an effort to address environmental concerns, that is simply false. And I will not take the time at this point, but we will discuss it in more detail. The letter sent by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency makes a very compelling argument. So for the purposes of this act, we, in effect, wipe out the National Environmental Policy Act. Let me go on and talk about the standards because we have talked a good bit about that. The standards that we are concerned about are the radioactive exposure standards. Nowhere in the world, for no other project on the face of the Earth is a radiation standard--if I could get that chart-- no other place in the world do we have a radiation standard that proposes 100 millirems from a single source. No place. The EPA safe drinking water standard is 4; the WIPP standard is 15. Let me refresh my colleague's memory. In this Congress, this year, our distinguished colleague from New Mexico got up, and properly so, expressed concern about EPA's ability to establish standards for the WIPP facility, the repository for transuranic waste. The National Academy of Sciences has recommended between 10 and 30 millirems of exposure. What do we have in Nevada? Mr. President, 100 millirems. That is just simply unconscionable. That is simply unconscionable. Oh, yes, they say, the EPA is brought back into the process. Not as one would expect it. That is the standard unless they are able to disprove that 100 millirems would have no adverse impact on health and safety, another concern raised by the EPA, which makes no equivocation at all about the fact that that presents a public health risk. Every Member in this body, whatever his or her view is on an interim storage facility, should be concerned as Americans about what is being done with respect to this provision. Moreover, the EPA is restricted and the NRC is restricted in terms of how to apply the standards. We will talk a little bit more about that during the course of this debate. The National Academy of Sciences has indicated, as one example, that there are health and safety concerns for 10,000 years and beyond. The statute we are being asked to consider in this very amendment would limit the ability to consider this only to the first 1,000 years. That is not the most critical time. It is after 1,000 years that the canisters are supposed to fail and then it migrates into the underground repository itself. I could go on and on. We have talked about the preemption. Make no mistake, I say to my colleagues, this amendment in effect preempts the environmental laws of America, all of these provisions here. I will not take time to read all of them because we are under some time constraints on this amendment. Look at them: Federal Land Policy Act, RCRA, clean air, clean water, Superfund. None of those apply if they are in conflict with the provisions of this act, none. This is simply an outrage, whatever one's view is about transporting nuclear waste across the country, and much more will be said about that later. The fiscal impact of this has been discussed. I want to comment briefly on this. It has been clear since the very beginning of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, that the fundamental premise of that act, as contained in all the provisions, indicates the first and primary responsibility from a financial point of view will be the utilities' themselves. That is the first and foremost responsibility. This amendment very cleverly changes that. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BRYAN. It very cleverly changes that. Remember the premise in the 1982 Nuclear Policy Act itself was the responsibility will be that of the utilities, in terms of the financial responsibility. Repeatedly-- over and over again. The responsibility goes far beyond the initial licensing period. We are talking about something that lasts for tens of thousands of years. But this is why this is the nuclear industry bailout or relief act. What they have done is limited the liability of the utility by saying, until 2002, the maximum amount that can be contributed into the nuclear waste fund, a fund that is generated by a 1 mill levy on each kilowatt hour of energy generated, will be 1 mill. The people who have looked at that, the General Accounting Office and others, have concluded that the fund currently is underfunded between $4 and $8 billion. It gets better. After the year 2002, the utilities' liability is further limited to the amount of the annual appropriation. So there is nothing that is being done with respect to the long-term implications of this piece of legislation, in terms of the storage of nuclear wastes. Let me be clear that by the year 2033, for the utilities, nuclear utilities that are currently licensed, those licensing periods expire. What this means is that the American taxpayer, people who have never received 1 kilowatt of nuclear-generated power, will pick up the balance. Let me be clear on that. Historically, since the establishment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it has been the financial responsibility of the utilities to handle the storage, the financial responsibility. This now changes dramatically and there are limitations--the 1 mill limitation and, after the year 2002, only the amount that is appropriated. This year, for example, that would have been roughly one-third of a mill. The balance all shifts to the taxpayer. So, you talk about an unfunded mandate on the American taxpayer, this is it. Let me respond briefly to a couple of comments that were made, and I know our time will conclude. First of all, our friend from Louisiana makes the point that Nevada has hosted the Nevada test site and nuclear detonations have occurred there for many years. I hope none of us is going to be penalized because Nevada, as part of the national defense effort beginning during the height of the cold war in the 1950's, agreed to accept the Nevada test site. That was part of our national defense effort and Nevadans assumed that responsibility, and proudly so. Now, with respect to the amount of radioactivity generated, all the tests conducted out there would amount to less than 1 ton. That would be the cumulative impact of all of that radioactivity. What we are talking about----

Mr. BRYAN. Yes.

Mr. BRYAN. No. We are referring to the total volume of radioactivity, underground as well.

Mr. BRYAN. One ton.

Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire of the Chair as to how much time remains?