Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I must say, it prompts the question in this Senator's mind. There must be more to this than we understand. Somehow, in a deliberative chamber, that there would be a suggestion made that health and safety standards, which presumably are legislated for the Nation, and with each of us entitled to equal protection under the law, and presumably I would think we would be entitled to equal protection in terms of health and safety standards, that a Congress which purports to be interested and concerned with the rights and sovereignty of States, individual States, would suggest that one State out of the Nation, and one State alone, would have a standard applied to that State that is 25 times the safe standard for safe drinking water and would be more than 6 times the standard that the citizens of our southwestern State, New Mexico, would be subjected to for the transuranic, that somehow we have a standard of 100 millirems.

Mr. BRYAN. As the Senator well knows, the WIPP is a facility in New Mexico designed to receive transuranic nuclear waste. Is the Senator indicating for the good citizens of New Mexico, 15 millirems?

Mr. BRYAN. I believe that the state of the record will bear this out, that no nuclear utility in America has ever been required to close or cease generation of power because of the absence of storage.

Mr. BRYAN. I believe, if the Senator would yield for a further question----

Mr. BRYAN. If I understand what the Senator is saying, this is absolutely astounding. Is the Senator suggesting that the EPA has said, as a safe drinking standard for America, 4 millirems? That is per year?

Mr. BRYAN. I think the Senator's point was that the population numbers that I read of part of those cities represents the corporate city limits, and I believe the Senator's point, if I understood him correctly, is that each of these communities are part of a metropolitan area. As the Senator pointed out, in our hometown of Las Vegas, there are roughly a million people in the metropolitan area who would be directly and adversely impacted by a rail or highway accident. Yet, Las Vegas is listed for purposes of population as 258,000. I believe, if I understood the Senator's point, in addition to the population indicated here, there are suburban communities that would be populated as well, perhaps even greater.

Mr. BRYAN. Apropos to the Senator's comment that we have heard time and time again that there is a crisis that is unfolding, does the Senator recall back in the early 1980's when a program that was referred to as the away-from-reactor-storage concept, which is similar to the interim storage that we are dealing with, that the nuclear utilities in America came forward and indicated that if they did not have away-from-reactor-storage capability--this was in the early eighties--that by 1983 there may be brownouts across the country, that nuclear utilities would be forced to close with all kinds of electrical distribution crises appearing in cities across the country? And if the Senator recalls that, does this not seem like a familiar refrain of the old cry of wolf again and again and again because, in point of fact, as I understand it--and I invite the Senator to respond to my question--there really is no crisis? There is no reason for us to be on an issue such as the S. 1936 bill, as the Senator mentions. Does the Senator recall that history? The Senator has been in this Chamber longer than I have. But this is such a familiar refrain to this Senator.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BRYAN. It is my understanding of the state of the record that in point of fact some nuclear utilities today are storing their high-level nuclear waste on-site in the facilities which the Senator has just described, dry cask storage. So as I understand it, we are not talking about some theoretical or technical possibility. We are talking about technology off the shelf, currently available, being used by many utilities and available currently today.

Mr. BRYAN. My question is that we were told in 1980 that if that away-from-reactor legislation that was on the floor being debated on July 28 was not enacted, that these utilities would have to close by 1983. My question to the Senator is, Is he aware of any of these facilities ever closing as a result of the lack of storage, as was suggested to us, in the crisis-ridden prediction?

Mr. BRYAN. Responding to my colleague, this is kind of a deja vu. This is in the Congressional Record, on July 28, 1980. That is almost 16 years ago, in which, on the floor of the Senate it was asserted that, if this particular legislation, this away-from-reactor storage was not obtained, that by 1983--that is 13 years ago--that civilian nuclear reactors in this country would shut down. I do not know if my colleague from Nevada is aware of this but, upon my propounding the question to him--was he aware that among those utilities that were claiming they would be shut down was Alabama Power Co., the J. Farly Reactor, Arkansas Power & Light Co., Arkansas Nuclear 1 and 2, Boston Edison Co., Pilgrim 1, Carolina Power & Light Co., Brunswick 1, Brunswick 2, Robinson 2, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Zimmer No. 1, Commonwealth Edison Co., La Salle 1 and 2, Consumers' Dairy Co., Palisades, Duke Power Co., Maguire No. 1, Maguire No. 2, Okonee No. 1, Okonee 2 and 3; Florida Power & Light, St. Lucy 1, St. Lucy 2, Turkey Point 3, Turkey Point 4, General Public Utilities, Oyster Creek, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., Millstone 1, Millstone 2, Northern States Power Co., Monticello, Omaha Power District, Fort Calhoun, Power Authority of the State of New York, J.A. Fitzpatric, Indian Point No. 3, Philadelphia Electric Co., Peach Bottom 2 and 3, Rochester Gas and Electric, R.E. Genna facility, Virginia Electric & Power Co., North Anna No. 1, North Anna No. 2, Surrey 1, Surrey 2, and the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co., Vermont Yankee. I ask unanimous consent the material from the Congressional Record of 1980 be printed in today's Congressional Record.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator just made the point there is really no need for this legislation. I call to the attention of the Senator, and I ask him if he recalls that in the Congressional Record on July 28, 1980, in the context of a debate on the away-from-reactor proposal, a statement was made on the floor by one of our colleagues that this bill-- referring to this away-from-reactor storage, which is a progenitor, if you will, of this temporary storage facility that we are dealing with in our discussion this evening--it was said, the date again, July 28, 1980: This bill deals comprehensively with the problem of civilian nuclear waste. It is an urgent problem, Mr. President, for this Nation. It is urgent first because we are running out of reactor space at reactors for the storage of the fuel and if we do not build what we call away-from- reactor storage and begin that soon, we could begin shutting down civilian nuclear reactors in this country as soon as 1983.

Mr. BRYAN. I must say, the thought occurs to this Senator, and the question arises in this Senator's mind, that why would any legislative body seek to impose a standard on a single State that no other Member of this body would be willing to accept for his or her State, when what we are talking about is health and safety? We are talking about potential dangers from the standpoint of cancer, genetic health problems, all of which, as I recall, we experience currently as a result of some of the atmospheric experiences in Nevada State in the 1950's and 1960's. (Mr. ABRAHAM assumed the chair.)

Mr. BRYAN. And that the citizens in the State of Nevada--we were admitted to the Union, if I recall, before the good State of New Mexico--but somehow for the rest of America, they have a 4-millirem standard for safe drinking water, at another nuclear storage area in our country they are proposing 15 millirems, but in the State of Nevada from a sole source, a single source, they are suggesting that Nevadans would have to accept a standard of 100 millirems from one source on an annual basis? Is that what they are suggesting?

Mr. BRYAN. I think the Senator's point is that in New York, with over 7 million people; in Los Angeles with over 5.5 million; Chicago, with 2.7 million; Houston, TX, 1.6 million; Dallas, over a million; San Antonio, nearly a million; Baltimore, 736,000; Jacksonville City, 635,000; Columbus, 632,000; Milwaukee, 628,000; the Nation's Capital, 606,000; El Paso, 515,000; Cleveland, 555,000; New Orleans, 496,000; Nashville-Davidson, 488,000; Denver, 467,000 people; Fort Worth, TX, 447,000; Portland, OR, 437,000; Kansas City, MO, 435,000; Tucson, 405,000; St. Louis, 396,000; Charlotte, NC, 396,000, and Atlanta, site of the Olympics, 394,000; Albuquerque, 384,000; Pittsburgh, 369,000; Sacramento, 369,000; Minneapolis, 368,000; Fresno, 354,000; Omaha, 335,000; Toledo, 332,000; Buffalo, 328,000; Santa Ana, CA, 293,000; Colorado Springs, 281,000; St. Paul, 272,000; Louisville, 269,000; Anaheim, 266,000; Birmingham, 265,000; Arlington, TX, 261,000; our own home city of Las Vegas, 258,000; Rochester, 231,000; Jersey City, 228,000; Riverside, CA, 226,000; Akron, 223,000; Baton Rouge, 219,000; Stockton, 210,000; Richmond, 203,000; Shreveport, 198,000; Mobile, 196,000; Des Moines, 193,000; Lakeland, FL, 188,000; Hialeah, 187,000; Montgomery, 186,000; Lubbock, 180,000; Glendale, CA, 180,000; Columbus City, 178,000; Little Rock, 175,000; Bakersfield, 174,000; Fort Wayne, IN, 173,000; Newport News, VA, 170,000; Worcester, MA, 169,000, and I could go on and on, but I believe the Senator's point, if I understand him--and this is my question--is that this is not just a fight that just concerns the citizens of Nevada? What the Senator is suggesting, for those who may be watching the floor of the Senate tonight, is that it is not just two Nevada Senators who are fighting for the health and safety of their States, but there are people in these communities who do not think they have a stake in this fight who ought to be sharing their concerns with our colleagues and saying, look, we are affected, we are within a mile of these transportation routes and thousands of shipments of nuclear waste may be coming through our communities. I believe that is the Senator's point that he is trying to make, if I understand the Senator correctly.

Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator would yield for a further question.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BRYAN. A further question of the Senator, if the Senator will yield.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator may be aware of this. The Senator was making a very telling point, when the Senator was pointing out to our colleagues and to the listening audience in America, that 43 States are impacted and the number of shipments. The Senator may not be aware of the fact that as you look across this chart--here we have 50 million Americans who are within a mile of either the rail or highway shipment routes, so for people who are watching the floor of the Senate tonight who may think it is just the two Senators from Nevada that would be impacted by this, my question to the Senator is, this has a national impact, does it not?

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. As I understand what the Senator is indicating, in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we would have an attempt to find a suitable location, we would canvass America. We would look for the best location, wherever it would be, whether the formation would be granite in the Northeast or the salt dome formations in the South, or whether it would be tuff in Nevada, and that after that search was made, that there would be three sites that would be studied and referred to the President of the United States, and that one of those sites would ultimately be chosen. If I understand what the Senator from Nevada is saying, that the 1986, 1987 changes to the law in effect said no longer do we search the country for the best site. Forget those criteria. We will just study, in terms of a permanent repository, the State of Nevada, and that at that time we had some assurance and some protection in the sense of equity or fairness that a State could not be studied for a permanent site, as I understood the Senator to say, that No. 1, you could not locate a temporary facility until after the permanent site was sited, and that, second, a State could not be both a permanent and a temporary site. I believe that is what I understood the Senator to say. The Senator can perhaps enlighten me if I misstated that case.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the difficulty in bringing the issues we are voting on today before the Senate has resulted in an unfortunate parliamentary situation, where the bill is not open to amendments. While I generally support the bill, and plan to vote in favor of the bill today, I would have preferred the bill to be open to amendment, both to add other desirable provisions, particularly to the small business tax relief title, and to offer amendments to strike provisions which I believe are inappropriate. In particular, there is one provision which I am strongly opposed to: the provision which imposes income tax withholding on winnings from keno and bingo. Under current law, income taxes are withheld only for winnings where the odds are over 300 to 1, but bingo and keno are exempt. The bill being considered by the Senate today extends this withholding to bingo and keno winnings over $5,000, regardless of the odds of the wager. The change in withholding included in the bill is not included for any serious policy or enforcement reason. In fact, there is good reason not to require withholding on gambling winnings. For example, gambling winnings can be offset by gambling losses--drastically reducing the actual tax due from the winnings. Since withholding is intended to approximate actual tax liability, requiring withholding for a tax liability that does not exist runs counter to sound tax policy. Of course, requiring withholding on bingo and keno winnings was not included in this bill for tax policy or enforcement reasons--it was solely in order to raise revenue for other tax provisions of the bill. While I am supportive of these tax cuts, I object to offsetting them with a provision that will negatively impact only one segment of the economy, the gaming-entertainment industry. Tax withholding on bingo and keno winnings is unsound for policy reasons and unfair to an important industry in my State. This provision, and similar provisions proposed or adopted in recent years, continue to show a disregard and lack of knowledge concerning the gaming/entertainment industry in Congress and at the IRS. The revenue raised by this provision is relatively small--$69 million over 10 years--but could cause significant harm in a legitimate industry. I will vote for this bill in spite of my opposition to increasing withholding on gambling winnings, but I urge the conference committee to drop this misguided attempt to raise revenue.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Senate Armed Services Committee's national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997. I voted to report the bill out of the Armed Services Committee because I believe it should be openly debated on the Senate floor. I cannot support this bill in its current form as it contains significant and questionable spending increases from the original authorization requested by the Pentagon. This bill recommends a total spending level for the Pentagon of $267.3 billion in fiscal year 1997, an extra $13 billion beyond everything the Pentagon requested for the year. In today's climate of budget cuts, Federal deficits, and balanced budget debate, it is irresponsible to spend an additional $13 billion on top of the Pentagon's budget request. It is a rare Government agency that is granted everything it asks for in its annual budget, and an additional allocation of $13 billion above and beyond its top request level is quite extreme. Balancing the budget is a priority for me. I do not believe that we can afford to spend this much money--especially when military experts question the need for it. One example of this bill's overspending is the case of the F-16. The Department of Defense has planned to build four F-16's in fiscal year 1997. When asked what additional resources they might need related to the F-16 program, DOD responded that they ideally would like to have two more, for a total of six. The Senate Armed Services Committee somehow considered it prudent to provide an additional $107.4 million so that the Air Force may purchase a total of eight F-16's. This is a national defense bill, not a national jobs bill. I am also puzzled by the committee's position on the funding of nuclear attack submarines. Although a full procurement plan was laid out by the committee in last year's defense authorization bill, this year's bill overrides that schedule and instead spends $701 million to accelerate the development of these submarines. Although some may assert that forcing production costs to occur earlier saves money, there is a point where acceleration of production actually costs more money in the long run. If engineers are not provided enough time to work out the bugs of a new design before building phase II of the same vehicle, cost overruns are likely to occur. There are sound reasons why we take time when developing a new combat vehicle, and to suggest that speeding up production saves money is not always the case. Some of the most dangerous provisions in this bill are in the section on ballistic missile defense. The Senate has already considered alternative ballistic missile defense policy this year in the Defend America Act. It is clear that there is not overwhelming support for an acceleration of a ballistic missile defense system. The President vetoed last year's defense authorization bill because it mandated deployment of a national missile defense system. The administration's current deployment policy is a 3+3 program which continues research for 3 years--into fiscal year 1999--and allows a decision to be made at that time to deploy a national missile defense system in 3 years or to continue research if the perceived threat does not warrant deployment. The committee has added $300 million to the national missile defense accounts in an effort to make sure that a system is deployable by 2003. Since the administration has not changed its position on reviewing deployment in 3 years, for the committee to suggest that deployment is needed in 3 years is beyond the previous mandate of the Senate and equivalent to asking for a veto from the President. It is not just the ballistic missile defense policy questions that I would call into question. The committee has added $856 million to the Pentagon's $2.8 billion request for funding the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization [BMDO]. The committee boosts star wars funding by adding $40 million to the requested $7.4 million for the Applied Interceptor Technology Program; by adding $70 million to the requested $30 million for the space-based laser; by adding $140 million to the requested $482 million for the theater high altitude area defense system; and by adding $246 million to the requested $58.2 million for the Navy upper tier system. These aggressive funding increases clearly accelerate development of the star wars initiative far beyond what the Pentagon had requested; this additional level of spending is almost unfathomable in an age of fiscal austerity. In addition, this bill contains language that would impede efforts the President is making to abide by the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. The ABM Treaty was originally negotiated in 1972 between the United States and the Soviet Union; since the breakup of the Soviet Union, President Clinton has been trying to determine how the treaty can still apply to the independent states now replacing the former Soviet Union. The committee states that ``* * * the United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would add one or more countries to the ABM Treaty or would otherwise convert the treaty from a bilateral to a multilateral treaty, unless the agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power under the Constitution.'' The administration has expressed serious reservations with this language. If this language is adopted, Russians will have ample reason to believe that the United States no longer intends to abide by the provisions of the ABM Treaty and would likely become reluctant to negotiate any further nuclear weapon reductions. Mr. President, we really ought to think twice before we vote on this bill. With an extra $13 billion in increased spending levels and substantive changes in ballistic missile defense policy, I do not feel comfortable supporting it. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.