Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Before the Senator from Maine would be prepared to yield, the Senators from Nevada appreciate the Senator from Maine operating in a bipartisan fashion, but the concern that we have with this amendment surfaces on the floor at nearly 2200 hours eastern daylight time. We get an emergency call expressing concern from an industry that is vital, not only, in my view, to our national defense, but to a community that my senior colleague and I represent. We are also informed that the amount of the offset that the Senator from Maine needs to accomplish his objective is something in the neighborhood of $440 million. I will yield to him if he seeks to correct those numbers that we have been provided with. In point of fact, by having all the materials in the strategic reserve made available in the market, they actually generate more money than the Senator has required for the offset. We want to work with the Senator, but I do not believe we can feel comfortable that there will not in fact be an impact upon an industry which is of critical importance to our State. And I share the concern with the Senator, my friend, from Maine.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, at this time, I would like to withdraw my second-degree amendment.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BRYAN. If it is not clear, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid be made a cosponsor of that amendment.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. May I inquire of the Chair as to the parliamentary state of affairs on the floor? What is the pending amendment?

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 4371 to Amendment No. 4369 Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I do not know whether we are going to be debating this extensively this evening, but the underlying amendment seeks, as an offset, to compel the sale of certain minerals in the strategic reserve, one of which would have a profound impact on a very important industry in my own State. The issue is titanium, titanium sponge. My colleagues may not be familiar with this, but upon the implosion of the Soviet Union into its various respective states, massive amounts of titanium sponge, a part of the Soviet reserve, were dumped on the international market, depressing the price of titanium to the extent that the domestic titanium industry nearly went under. That occurred in 1991. Over the past 4 or 5 years, it has been a struggle just to survive. Senator Reid and I have been informed that this year is kind of a turnaround year; that is to say, they have begun to, from a financial perspective, surface above the water line, and the concern that I have is that with the authorized disposition of the strategic reserve, including titanium sponge, we might lose a very important domestic industry, one that is critical to our national defense as well. So it is on that basis that the second-degree amendment that Senator Reid and I have offered would delete titanium sponge from the list of strategic materials that Senator Cohen has provided as an offset to finance the recoupment provisions in the underlying amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I am pleased to support S. 1815, the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996. Let me begin by recognizing those who worked diligently to reach bipartisan agreement so that this bill could be considered on an expedited basis. Deserving of particular credit here are Senators Gramm and D'Amato and their staffs. I greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with them and with Senators Dodd and Sarbanes on this important piece of legislation. When I signed on as an original co-sponsor of S. 1815, I said that I believe our capital formation process is fundamentally sound. America's capital markets are the fairest, the most successful, and the most liquid the world has ever known. By virtually every statistical measure, the investment market is vibrant and healthy. Today, tens of millions of Americans rely on this Nation's financial markets to save for retirement, fund their children's college education, and to receive a rate of return on savings that exceeds the rate of inflation. Now more than ever, the people of America are investing in America. Just one example tells the story: For the first time in history, mutual fund assets exceed the deposits of the commercial banking system. This massive movement into our securities markets promises new and exciting opportunities for investors--and for American businesses. This Nation's securities laws and regulations are designed first and foremost to protect investors and to maintain the integrity of the marketplace, thereby promoting trust and confidence in our system of capital formation. We should strive for a securities regulatory system that is tough, but one that also is fair, efficient and up-to-date. On balance, I believe that S. 1815 does a good job of eliminating or modernizing laws and regulations that either are duplicative or outdated--without sacrificing investor protection. In general, the legislation strikes the proper balance between promoting efficiency and growth while ensuring integrity and fairness. One of the key objectives of this bill is to carefully reallocate key aspects of Federal and State securities laws so that we eliminate any duplication, thereby ensuring that our relatively modest regulatory resources are properly focused. Today, both the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] and the 50 State securities regulators share the responsibility for overseeing our capital markets. By and large, this system of shared regulatory responsibility has worked well, with the SEC taking responsibility for marketwide issues, while the States focus their attention on the issues most affecting individual investors and small businesses. I believe that there is room for improved coordination and a more clearly defined allocation of responsibility between the States and the SEC. I support the goal of eliminating duplicative and overlapping regulations that do not provide any additional protections to investors or to the markets but that do serve to increase the costs of raising capital. For these reasons, I support those provisions of the bill that will serve to draw brighter lines of responsibility between the States and the SEC, and that will streamline the securities offering process for American businesses. When this legislation was introduced, I said that it was critically important that this legislation preserve a strong State role in policing sales practices and in bringing enforcement actions. At the same time, I said that the bill must not undermine the ability of defrauded investors to recover their losses in court under state laws. I am gratified that the bill and the committee report that accompanies it explicitly provide that State securities regulators continue to have available to them the full arsenal of powers needed to investigate and to enforce laws against fraud and to retain their ability to protect the small investors of this country. Similarly, the bill and committee report also make it absolutely clear that nothing in this legislation alters or affects in any way any State statutory or common laws against fraud or deceit, including private actions brought pursuant to such laws. S. 1815 recognizes the fundamentally national character of the mutual fund industry by assigning exclusive responsibility for the routine review of mutual fund offering documents and related materials to the SEC and NASD. The legislation also encourages further innovation in the mutual fund industry by means of advertising prospectuses and funds of funds. I am pleased that my earlier concerns with the respect to reporting and recordkeeping requirements were addressed in the manager's amendment approved by the Banking Committee. Finally, I want to say a word about title I, in which we seek to rationalize the regulatory scheme for investment advisers. There is abundant evidence that the current system of investment adviser regulation is woefully inadequate, both in terms of the resources we devote to the effort and the laws that govern the industry. While I applaud the objectives of title I of S. 1815, it is my hope that Congress does not end its consideration of this issue here. I would agree that establishing the proper lines of regulatory jurisdiction is a necessary first step. Today, both the SEC and the State securities regulators oversee registered investment advisers. But, there are no clearly established lines of jurisdiction. As a result, both the States and the Federal Government essentially have responsibility for the entire population of investment advisers. However, neither the States nor the Commission have the resources to shoulder the entire job. What we are left with is a system that is both burdensome and ineffective. Although the regulators have tried to coordinate their activities, this legislation clearly establishes the concept of bright lines of responsibility so that the policing of the industry is both more rational and more effective. The oversight of investment advisers is an extremely important issue, as more and more Americans turn to these financial professionals to help guide them through the increasing complexity of our financial markets. Establishing a more rational system for determining jurisdiction is a helpful step. But, it is only a first step. And, while I agree with the objective of establishing clearer lines of responsibility, I am troubled by the very legitimate concerns raised by State and Federal regulators and consumer organizations with respect to the practical application of title I. The State of Nevada Securities Division has brought to my attention a real life situation that illustrates potential problems with this bill that I hope we can correct in conference. An investment advisor representative who worked for a firm with over $25 million in assets applied for a license in Nevada. The Securities Division discovered he had 14 complaints and numerous disciplinary actions filed against him. He did not get a license to operate in Nevada but, under the provisions of this bill, he would not be required to get one. Nevada regulators would be able to go after a bad actor after he has committed fraud but they would prefer to retain the ability to keep them out in the first place. One potential fix for this problem would be to require investment advisor representatives who have disciplinary histories to obtain State licenses regardless of the size of the firm. This would protect States' abilities to keep out unscrupulous operators before they have had a chance to prey on unsuspecting consumers. I understand that time may not permit us to address the many questions that have arisen in the context of title I. Nor do we have the time to comprehensively address all that needs to be done to improve the regulatory system for investment advisers. As a result, I would ask that we commit ourselves when we convene in the 105th Congress to assuring not only that State and Federal regulators have the necessary resources and are effectively implementing them. preserving state revenue authority

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, last week I joined my colleagues Senators Pryor, Chafee, and Brown in supporting and debating this loophole closing important amendment. I am glad that today we will get a vote on this issue. As I said last week, what we are talking about is money--big money-- hundreds of millions of dollars--even billions of dollars. When that kind of money is on the table, all kinds of special interests come forward and seek to protect themselves. The fact is that the prescription drug industry, through inadvertence and omission, has been given separate treatment--separate, distinct, special treatment--that no other industry or product in America receives. Our amendment to correct this inadvertence has the endorsement of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Patent Office, and the FDA plugs this loophole. Since last December, as these windfall profits have continued to accumulate, seniors across this country have continued to pay more than they should for certain prescription drugs. The loophole is still open today. We face the same issue--each and every day. American consumers are paying millions of dollars more than they ought to. So let me suggest, as I view my responsibilities as a Member of this Chamber, it is highly appropriate that we seek to correct this inequity and to provide the relief to which American consumers are entitled--and to do so immediately. When the loophole closing amendment came to the Senate floor last fall, a critical vote was taken--and by a margin of only 1 vote--48 to 49--the Senate defeated this important amendment. A compromise was reached after that vote. The Judiciary Committee would review the GATT Treaty problem, and report back to the Senate with its recommendation. This was to be a good faith effort to analyze the issue. It is fair to ask what the outcome of this review was? The Judiciary Committee did report out a substitute bill to our GATT amendment--albeit 5 months after our amendment was voted upon. This substitute is called the Pharmaceutical Industry Special Equity Act of 1996. It has a somewhat ironic ring to it. Who does it benefit? It benefits the prescription drug industry in a very special way that is inequitable to American consumers, and particularly those on fixed incomes. What we really are being asked to support today is a bill that CODIFIES--in my view codifies--the very GATT Treaty mistake our amendment is trying to correct. A bill that continues the GATT treaty loophole for such drug manufacturers as Glaxco-Wellcome, Inc. and its ulcer-heartburn drug, Zantac--the world's best selling drug, which costs twice as much as it should because of the loophole. More than 100 drugs are being protected from generic drug competition because of this loophole. These include the hypertension drug, Capoten, which costs 40 percent more due to the loophole--the cholesterol lowering drug Mevacor, the ulcer drug Prilosec, and the anti-fungal agent drug Diflucan. A bill that ensures that seniors across this Nation will pay more than they should for prescriptions drugs they need and that are essential to their health. A bill that ensures American taxpayers will pay more than they should to provide prescription drugs for those essential programs offered by the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Administration and other agencies of the Federal Government which purchase prescription drugs on behalf of the clientele they serve. A bill that creates tremendous legal barriers--in my view, insurmountable barriers--to the generic drug manufacturing industry to ensure that these manufacturers cannot bring to the marketplace lower priced prescription drugs. A bill that ensures the prescription drug manufacturers keep their $2.3 billion windfall, plus a bill that extends special patent extensions for two brand name drug companies--Zeneca and Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories which received a 2-year patent extension for Lodine, its anti-inflammatory medicine. So what has occurred here? In my view, we have a situation worse than before. Not only do some prescription drug companies retain their windfall profits--they are protected from nearly any possibility that any generic manufacturer will be able to compete against them during the extended patent term. Generic drug manufacturers will be required to prove a substantial investment before being allowed to compete against any brand name drug. The key change, however, is that this substantial investment requirement is being defined differently to ensure that generic manufacturers cannot--as a practical matter--compete against any brand- name drug benefiting from the extended patent period under the GATT Treaty. Under the substitute bill, substantial investment is defined much differently. In addition, generic manufacturers are required to make a determination of equitable remuneration to the brand name manufacturer before any generic drug to be manufactured. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize those who are enjoying these windfall profits are not going to be eager to agree as to what equitable remuneration may be. In effect, we create a lawyers' field day to debate what is, in fact, equitable remuneration. The effect of the change is, first, it will be virtually impossible for any generic manufacturer to meet the new substantial investment standard. Second, it will mean generic manufacturers will be tied up in court proving substantial investment and what is equitable remuneration before they can bring any generic drug to be marketed. Two obstacles, two hurdles, two barriers that, as a practical matter, are going to be virtually insurmountable. Who is being forgotten? Who gets hurt by this change? Those Americans particularly that are on a fixed income. That is primarily our senior community. They have been paying and will continue to pay more than they should--for lack of a prescription drug alternative. I am puzzled as to why anyone believes it is equitable to force seniors--many on very limited incomes--to pay more for a drug than they should so prescription drug manufacturers can continue to reap the windfall profits that this loophole has created. I must say I am astonished by the provisions of this Pharmaceutical Industry Special Equity Act--a misnomer if there ever was one. Its a special interest provision. My colleagues who talk the virtues of competition in the marketplace surely must find this substitute bill to be a bit beyond the pale. I remind my colleagues that there is no reason to allow a limited number of prescription drug companies an unintended windfall profit to the detriment of all Americans who depend upon prescription drugs in order to sustain their health. Seniors, veterans, and the most vulnerable in our country cannot fight the brand name pharmaceutical industry on their own. They deserve and need our protection from an industry that is trying to ``codify'' a mistake to ensure their windfall profit margin. I hope my colleagues can see both this loophole for the mistake it is--and this substitute bill for the even larger mistake it is. We have the ability to end this inequity now. The vote you cast today is very clear. You vote for the pharmaceutical industry windfall, or you vote for seniors and all consumers who need fair drug prices. Please join me in stopping this travesty by supporting this amendment.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I likewise ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. By way of response, I am always delighted to hear the enlightened words of my friend from Colorado, and I anxiously await his important comments to the Senate.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I, again, express my appreciation to my colleague from Colorado for an extraordinarily clear and lucid explanation of what must appear to the folks at home, listening to this debate on television, as a very arcane, technical, esoteric kind of an argument. Let me try to distill his thoughts a little further, if I may. What we are talking about is money, big money, hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars. When that kind of money is on the table, all kinds of special interests come forward and seek to protect themselves. I want to comment a little bit further on that. One of my colleagues raised the question as to the propriety of adding this amendment to a Department of Defense authorization bill. I think there is a compelling argument as to why we should do so. The Department of Defense spends each year $900 million on drugs--$900 million. If the amendment authored by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, of which the Senator from Colorado and I and others are cosponsors, is adopted, we save $30 million each year. So the relevancy of this debate is very much appropriately addressed to a DOD authorization bill. My colleague from Colorado, I think, did an extraordinary job of explaining the history, and I will not belabor that point other than to make the point, as he did, this industry, the drug industry, through inadvertence and omission, is given separate treatment, separate, distinct and special treatment, that no other industry or product in America receives. It is that inequity that generates the interest of the Senator from Arkansas and others of us to remedy and to correct this. Our amendment, which was debated sometime last year, had the endorsement of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Patent Office, and the FDA, and would plug this loophole. Since last December, as these windfall profits have continued to accumulate, American consumers, veterans, seniors, and others across the country have continued to pay more than they should pay for certain prescription drugs. Mr. President, the loophole is open today. We face the same issue. Each and every day, American consumers are paying millions of dollars more than they ought to. So let me suggest, as I view my responsibilities as a Member of this Chamber, it is highly appropriate that we seek to correct this inequity and to provide the relief to which American consumers are entitled and to do so immediately. When the loophole-closing amendment came to the Senate floor last fall, a vote was taken, a critical vote in which, by a margin of one vote, 48-49 the Senate defeated the amendment that the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Colorado and others of our colleagues offered. A compromise was reached after that vote. The Judiciary Committee would review the GATT treaty problem and report back to the Senate with its recommendation. This was to be a good-faith effort to analyze the issue. It is fair to ask the question, What was the outcome of this review? Well, the Judiciary Committee did report out a substitute bill to our GATT amendment, albeit 5 months after our amendment was voted upon, 5 months in which drug companies have continued to reap windfall profits and 5 months that the American public have been forced to pay higher drug prices than they should have, that the American taxpayer has been required to pay more money for those essential programs offered by the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, and other agencies of the Federal Government which purchase prescription drugs on behalf of the clientele which they service. This substitute is called the Pharmaceutical Industry Special Equity Act of 1996. It has somewhat of an ironic ring to it--the Pharmaceutical Industry Special Equity Act of 1996. Who does it benefit? It benefits the drug industry in a very special way that is inequitable to American consumers and particularly those who are on fixed incomes. What we are really being asked to support today, in the form of the substitute, is a bill that codifies--in my view codifies --the very GATT treaty mistake that our amendment seeks to correct, a bill that continues the GATT treaty loophole for such drug manufacturers as Glaxco-Wellcome, Inc. and its ulcer/heartburn drug Zantac, the world's best selling drug, which costs twice as much as it should because of this loophole that we seek to close. More than 100 drugs are being protected from generic drug competition because of this loophole. These include the hypertension drug Capoten, which costs 40 percent more due to the loophole, and the cholesterol- lowering drug Mevacor, the ulcer drug Prilosec, and the antifungal agent drug Diflucan. It is a bill that ensures that seniors across the Nation will continue to pay more than they should for prescription drugs that they need and that are essential to their health, a bill that ensures taxpayers will pay more than they should to provide prescription drugs for the Medicaid and the veterans medical programs, a bill that creates tremendous legal barriers--in my view, insurmountable barriers--to the generic drug manufacturing industry to ensure that these manufacturers cannot bring to the marketplace lower priced prescription drugs, a bill that ensures the prescription drug manufacturers continue to enjoy their $2.3 billion windfall, plus a bill that extends special patent extensions for two brand name drug companies, Zeneca and Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories, which received a 2-year patent extension for Lodine, its antiinflammatory medicine. What has occurred here? In my view, we have a situation that is worse than before. Not only do some prescription drug companies retain their windfall profits, they are protected from nearly any possibility that any generic manufacturer will be able to compete against them during this extended patent term. Generic drug manufacturers will be required to prove a substantial investment before being allowed to compete against any brand name drug. The key change, however, is that this substantial investment requirement is being defined much differently, to ensure the generic manufacturers cannot, as a practical matter, compete against any brand- name drug benefiting from the extended patent period under the GATT Treaty. Before the GATT Treaty, substantial investment was considered to be those expenses and activities involved in developing a submission to compete to the FDA. Under the substitute measure, substantial investment is defined much differently. In addition, under the substitute bill, a generic manufacturer must prove not only they have a substantial investment, but also they are required to make a determination of the kind of equitable remuneration to the brand name manufacturer before any generic drug can be manufactured. Mr. President, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize those who are enjoying these windfall profits are not going to be eager to agree as to what equitable remuneration may be. In effect, we create a lawyers' field day to debate what is, in fact, equitable remuneration. The effect of the change is, first, it will be virtually impossible for any generic manufacturer to meet the new substantial investment standard. Secondly, it will mean that generic manufacturers will be tied up in court proving substantial investment and what is equitable remuneration before they can bring any generic drug to the marketplace. Two obstacles, two hurdles, two barriers that, as a practical matter, are going to be virtually insurmountable. Who is being forgotten? Who gets hurt in this change? Those Americans particularly that are on a fixed income. That is primarily our senior community. They have been paying and will continue to pay more than they should for lack of a prescription drug alternative. I am puzzled to think as to why anyone believes it is equitable to force seniors, many on very limited incomes, to pay more for a drug than they should so prescription drug manufacturers can continue to reap the windfall profits that this loophole has created. I must say I am astonished by the provisions of this Pharmaceutical Industry Special Equity Act--a misnomer, if ever there was one; a special interest provision, if there ever was. My colleagues who talk the virtues of competition in the marketplace surely must find this substitute bill to be a bit beyond the pale. I remind my colleagues, there is no reason to allow a limited number of prescription drug companies an unintended windfall profit to the detriment of all Americans who depend upon prescription drugs in order to sustain their health. Seniors, veterans, and the most vulnerable in our country cannot fight the brand name pharmaceutical industry on its own. They deserve and need our protection from an industry that is trying to codify a mistake, to perpetuate their windfall profit markets. I hope my colleagues can see the loophole for the mistake it is and this substitute bill for the larger mistake it would be. We should always remember who is being hurt by the loophole in the State. We have the ability to end this inequity now. The means to do so is the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Arkansas. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the issue about which much has been said recently, the so-called need for a Federal gaming study.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending business and that I be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair for advising me of the parliamentary situation. Mr. President, I was commenting, we have had much discussion in the media, on the floor and as part of the national dialog of the need for a so-called Federal study of gaming. The integrity of the legal, legitimate entertainment industry, one which is of primary importance to the economy of my State, has been repeatedly impugned. One Member of the other body took the House floor to call those who work in the gaming entertainment industry a group of ``roaches.'' I want to cut through some of this rhetoric and set the record straight. Excessive rhetoric has been used to drown out a constructive dialog and a careful deliberation about a legitimate issue: the rapid growth of gaming across America. Opponents of legalized gaming have resorted to character assassination, guilt by association, and distortion of the views of those with whom they disagree. The time, Mr. President, has come to say, ``Enough is enough.'' At the outset, it is imperative to step back from this emotional rhetoric by gaming critics and to observe that gaming entertainment in all forms would not be expanding without demand for this form of entertainment. Simply stated, the American consumer, not the Government, has decided to spend his or her precious recreational dollar in this fashion. For example, 30 percent, or 32 million households, made a total of 125 million visits to casinos across America in 1994. The total number of casino visits rose to 150 million in the following year of 1995. In many respects, this growth in casino visits is not surprising, given the changing nature of gaming entertainment in general and casino gaming in particular. Since the late 1980's, casinos have become what the experts characterize as ``destination resorts'' which offer more than the various games of chance normally associated with the casino. These destination resorts now offer a range of additional entertainment experiences, including a variety of sporting events and recreational activities, theme dining experiences, unique shopping, Broadway-quality shows, and many other attractions. If casino entertainment was not providing solid value for the dollar spent, consumers would not be patronizing these establishments. It is somewhat puzzling that those who are defenders of the free market and proponents of State regulation are quick to second-guess consumers and States on this policy question. Advocates of legislation to create a Federal gaming study commission have stressed in their public statements and in testimony before various congressional committees that the limited purpose of this commission was to study the socioeconomic effects of all forms of gambling and to give policymakers at the local, State, and Federal level the data they need to make educated decisions. I might just say parenthetically that there has been no request generated by local or State government, that I am aware of, of calling upon the Federal Government to conduct such a study. But that is ostensibly what they claim. They have consistently emphasized that no one, least of all the legal gaming industry, should fear anything that is just a study. Mr. President, the gaming entertainment industry in my own State has absolutely nothing to fear from a fair and unbiased study. Nevada's tough regulation has made this industry a model for other States, which have adopted gaming, to follow and, indeed, is an international or global model. However, what is going on here is a crusade by those who want to destroy an activity that they do not like, and that, Mr. President, is dangerous. The principal premise for the proposed commission advanced by its antigaming opponents is that States and local governments lack the ability to acquire and act on objective information in the face of well-financed attempts to put casinos in. This simply does not square with reality. No State--and I repeat, Mr. President, no State--has approved new casino gaming for several years. For example, 7 of 10 gaming initiatives were defeated in 1994, and no new casino gaming was approved by a new jurisdiction in 1995. Let me just comment parenthetically. From a parochial perspective, representing my State, I am not an advocate for the expansion of casino gaming in other jurisdictions. But the point needs to be made that that is a decision which States, local governments, free from Federal interference, ought to be able to make on its own. Those who have an established agenda decided to elevate this commission from one to study the impact of gaming to one that is designed to investigate the operation of a legalized gaming industry. While many of those who support a study have good intentions and prefer a reasonable approach, they are being drowned out by those extremists whose goal is the destruction of this industry. The loudest voices calling for a gaming study are those who want to shut down a legal industry in a State which has chosen to allow gaming. They believe they possess a superior moral barometer and should tell us what is right and what is wrong. They feel the same way on other aspects of our society, and we know not what will be their next target. What I want to do today is to give you a more fair picture of the legal and highly regulated gaming industry in my own State. In Nevada, the gaming entertainment industry provides 43 percent of the $1.2 billion annual State general revenue. This is the source that finances the essential operations of State government; first and foremost, education. The gaming entertainment industry accounts for more than 50 percent of Nevada's employment, either directly or indirectly. The gaming industry in Nevada has today extensive regulation and oversight, involving day-to-day onsite supervision by State gaming control authorities, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Treasury Department unit which handles currency transaction issues. In fact, when the Treasury Department testified before the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee recently, they had high praise for the regulation of currency transactions in the State of Nevada. The regulation of gaming is not perfect. We have worked long and hard in Nevada to establish a tough regulatory system that is a model for how such a system should be run. The State of Nevada employs 372 regulators and charges the gaming industry $19 million on an annual basis to see that only legitimate interests are involved in gaming and that the games of chance are conducted honestly and fairly. Despite Nevada's success with gaming, I would be the first to admit that legalized gaming may not be the best choice for every community, and I have repeatedly expressed my concern that Indian gaming regulation in some States is far too lax. Some States have unrealistically looked at gaming to solve all of their financial problems; a panacea, if you will. And some States have rushed into gaming without the proper regulatory controls, and the results have been disastrous. Any State or community that chooses to legalize gaming should do so with its eyes open and with a strong commitment to strict regulation and control. I am confident, however, that States are more than qualified to make these type of decisions on their own without the intrusion of the Federal Government. I am proud of what I did in Nevada in my 6 years as Governor at a time when the industry worked with me to improve the industry's operation. The chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board is Bill Bible, the son of a highly respected colleague of ours, U.S. Senator Alan Bible. Bill Bible is tough, he is honest, and he is effective. Nevada's gaming regulations reflect his commitment to making sure that our industry is regulated completely and thoroughly. The fact is that today the legalized gaming industry is a legitimate business, as legitimate as any business on the Fortune 500 list. More than 50 publicly traded companies, all regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, own gaming interests. The financial operations of these concerns are carefully scrutinized by market analysts, market regulators and investors of all kinds. All these companies file 10K's, or similar forms, with the SEC. The stocks of these companies are widely traded on major public stock exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange and overseas markets. Stocks of gaming and gaming-related companies are broadly held by major institutional investors, such as pension funds and other retirement- related funds, including the California Public Employees Retirement System, the Colorado Public Employees Retirement System, the New York State Teachers Retirement Fund, the Wisconsin Investment Board and Harvard University. The gaming entertainment industry employs over 1 million people throughout the United States, paying $6.8 billion in salaries in 1994. The industry paid more than $1.4 billion in taxes to State and local governments in 1995, along with an estimated $6 billion to $7 billion more paid by other forms of gaming entertainment, such as State lotteries, sports betting, horse and dog racing. While Las Vegas is proud to be the gaming entertainment capital of the world, Nevada is far from alone as a gaming industry base. Jobs, entertainment, taxes and positive economic effects are felt in States as economically and politically diverse--New Jersey, Mississippi, Illinois, Connecticut, Minnesota and Iowa. Indeed, some forms of gaming entertainment are legal in 48 of the 50 States. The industry will spend an estimated $3 billion on new construction in 1996, with billions more slated to be spent on construction projects over the next several years. This construction creates demands for goods and services sold by companies around the country for everything from construction materials to architectural services. The true agenda of the industry's critics is an agenda of ending legalized gaming, as the title of the group ``National Coalition Against Legalized Gaming'' states in bold letters. My response is simple: in this country, adults are free to make their own decisions about where, when, and how to spend their entertainment dollars. It is indeed ironic, at a time when many decry the power of the Federal Government and seek a return to more State and local control and personal freedom, that some of the very same people who assert this as their philosophy are people who seek to establish a national commission in this case, without requiring involvement of State government officials, to determine how best to oversee a State- regulated industry. None of this is to suggest that gaming entertainment, like any other major business, particularly one which hosts millions of visitors each year, does not have its share of public issues and challenges. For example, in all of the recent commentary, little if anything has been said about the serious effort made by individual companies and the industry as a whole to address concerns about problem gaming. The industry recently announced the creation of a multimillion dollar commitment to the new National Center for Responsible Gaming. The companies involved in gaming entertainment are recognizable names like Hilton, ITT, and Harrah's. These companies engage in a wide range of community activities. These companies are run by highly respected business leaders such as Terry Lanni, Bill Bennett, Clyde Turner, Dan Reichartz, Bill Boyd, and many others I could mention who are recognized for the business acumen well beyond gaming circles. When a Member takes the floor to call a hard-working, law abiding industry a group of ``roaches'', it is time for a return to civility, to disagreeing without being disagreeable or disingenuous, in order to permit a rational debate on matters pertaining to the gaming industry. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I preface my comment by joining with my friend and colleague from Iowa, congratulating his great State on the sesquicentennial of admission to the Union. As he and I discussed before, I have a good many relatives who live in his State. I have had the privilege of spending a good bit of time over the years in Iowa. I enjoy the State, the people, and, again, I express my congratulations to them on the occasion of their celebration.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I support a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget. It is a sound and necessary approach to solving the severe fiscal crisis that is beginning to plague this country year after year. I believe that the force of a constitutional amendment is needed to mandate an end to profligate spending decisions that have hijacked the economic growth and security of this Nation over the past quarter of a century. Each year, when elected officials debate the Federal budget, responsible spending decisions are buffeted about by the winds of political rhetoric. There is no final arbiter to insure that sound economic decisions are made in the best long-term interest of the country. We need this constitutional amendment to force us to take the proper steps to repair and preserve the economic superiority of the United States of America. Mr. President, I am concerned about the future of this country, and about what failure to balance the budget today can do to burden the lives of our children and grandchildren tomorrow. For example, there have been a number of balanced budget proposals proffered in just the past year. The President has offered balanced plans, the House and the Senate have created their own balanced plans, and last week a bipartisan group of Senators offered yet another balanced budget plan. And yet, with all of these alternatives and professed commitment to a balanced budget, the Congress and the President have been not been able to reach agreement on a single one of them. Perhaps we need the force of the Constitution of the United States to give us the courage to stand up, take responsibility, and make the tough choices that balanced budgets require. Our burgeoning Federal debt is the greatest crisis facing our Nation today. It is devouring our savings, robbing our ability to invest in infrastructure and education, and saddling our children with an enormous bill that will eventually have to be paid. The interest payments on the debt consume dollars that could otherwise go for urgent needs such as infrastructure and education. In 1980, the cumulative Federal debt was $910 billion. A decade later the debt had tripled, and today it stands at $4.9 trillion. Simply limiting the Government's ability to borrow is not enough to achieve deficit reduction or to control the compounding interest on the national debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ``significant deficit reduction can best be accomplished by legislative decisions that reduce outlays or increase revenues.'' If we do not balance the budget today and continue on our path of irresponsible spending, what will happen? Here are a few examples: In the year 2000, annual interest payments on the Federal debt will grow to about $305 billion--an increase of over 50 percent in just 4 years. Interest payments on the debt will surpass defense spending and become the largest Federal expenditure. In the year 2012, unless policy changes are enacted, projected spending on entitlement programs and interest on the debt will grow so rapidly that they will consume all tax revenues collected by the Federal Government. In the year 2012, unless changes are made, the Government could theoretically close all Federal prisons, national parks, the Pentagon, and eliminate spending on research and development, education, roads and bridges and still not have enough savings to eliminate the deficit. In the year 2030, to bring the deficit down to the current level, the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform concluded that either all Federal taxes would have to be increased by 85 percent or all Federal spending programs would have to be cut in half. When I took the oath of office in 1983 as Governor of the State of Nevada, the Nevada State Constitution required a balanced budget. The necessary, excruciating task of balancing the State budget took strong executive and legislative leadership. Those tough decisions were made, and each year the State budget was balanced. Nevada is not alone in requiring a balanced budget, in fact, many States across the Nation require Governors to submit, and legislatures to pass, budgets that reconcile revenues and expenditures. It is time that the Congress and the President come together and make the tough decisions that are required for fiscally responsible governance. History has shown that nothing is more desired and nothing is more avoided than the will to make tough choices. The last time our Federal budget was balanced was 1969. Mr. President, we are sitting on a time bomb. Our obligation to finance the national debt eats away each year at our ability to address the critical needs of our population. Passing this amendment will signal to the American people that we are concerned about the solvency of this country, and it will demonstrate our commitment to preserving important government resources that are a lifeline for so many of our citizens. I strongly urge the passage of the constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996. This comprehensive effort to modernize our regulation of the capital markets will help us achieve the most efficient possible regulatory scheme, while preserving investor confidence in our markets by maintaining needed investor protection safeguards. I come to this issue believing that our capital formation process is fundamentally sound. America's capital markets are the fairest, most successful, and the most liquid the world has ever known. By virtually every statistical measure, our capital markets are vibrant and healthy. The stock market has been setting new records for some time now and is in the midst of the longest run in this century. This has been an unprecedented boom for companies, investors and Wall Street firms. The manner in which we reform our regulation of securities is important because tens of millions of Americans increasingly rely on our nation's financial markets to save for retirement, fund their children's college education, and to receive a rate of return on savings that exceeds the rate of inflation. Today, more than ever, the people of America are investing in America. For the first time in history, mutual fund assets exceed the deposits of the commercial banking system. The growth in the mutual fund industry has been nothing short of phenomenal. Today, there are 2,222 stock funds, 2,576 bond and fixed- income funds, plus another 1,000 money-market funds, according to the Investment Company Institute. In fact, there are now twice as many mutual funds--with a value of around $2.8 trillion--as stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The reason for this huge expansion of funds may be summed up in one word: demand. Funds continue to roll off the assembly line because investors want more avenues in which to put their money. Investors are attracted to mutual funds because the market has remained generally trouble-free and because of its relative safety. While much of the credit for this environment should go to go to the industry itself, so too should credit go to an effective system of regulation. In our enthusiasm for updating and modernizing the oversight of this marketplace, care must be taken to maintain vital investor protections that have helped this industry grow and prosper. Our securities laws and regulations are designed first and foremost to protect investors and to maintain the integrity of the marketplace, thereby promoting trust and confidence in our system of capital formation. We should strive for a securities regulatory system that is tough--but one that also is fair and reasonable. On balance, I believe that this legislation does a good job of eliminating or modernizing laws and regulations that either are duplicative or outdated--without sacrificing investor protection. However, I also recognize that the introduction of this bill is just the first step in a longer process and that further fine tuning and revisions will be in order as we learn more about the practical effect of several of its specific provisions. I have decided to sign on as a co-sponsor despite the reservations I have about specific provisions contained in the bill. I will seek out the comments and views of federal and state regulators, industry representatives, and investor advocates on these matters. I would like to take just a few minutes to briefly highlight a few key provisions of this legislation: More rational investment adviser oversight. This bill seeks to rationalize the regulatory scheme for investment advisers. Over the last decade, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have held numerous hearings in which we have been told that our system of investment adviser regulation is woefully inadequate, both in terms of the resources we devote to the effort and the laws that govern the industry. Today, we take a modest first step in the effort to establish a credible program of investment adviser oversight. While I applaud the sensible approach contained in this bill, it is my hope that Congress does not end its consideration of this issue here. This bill will direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to focus on the biggest investment advisers--those who manage more than $25 million of client assets. Investment advisers who fall below this threshold will be overseen by the State securities regulators, who appropriately are given the task of overseeing the smaller, local investment advisers. Now, it may be that the $25 million is not an appropriate dividing line. I would look for guidance here to the regulators and the industry who will be questioned on this issue. If we learn that the threshold is too high, too low, or too inflexible, I expect we will make the necessary revisions. The oversight of investment advisers is an extremely important issue, as more and more Americans turn to these financial professionals to help guide them through the increasing complexity of our financial markets. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have addressed the issue of improving investment adviser oversight for several years now, but each time we have failed to reach an agreement on how best to accomplish such a goal. Establishing a more rational system for determining jurisdiction is a helpful step. But, it is only a first step. If we can all agree on this, I hope that we can also agree to come back next year and begin the process of evaluating whether our investment adviser laws are adequate for the protection of investors. For example, as I understand it, there is little more to the federal system of regulation than filling out some paperwork and paying a one-time fee. There are no minimum standards of competency, training, or education to become an investment adviser. We must take a closer look at this law to determine where it may be deficient and to make the necessary improvements. Improved State-Federal Coordination. Today, both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the 50 State securities regulators share the responsibility for overseeing our capital markets. By and large, this system of shared regulatory responsibility has worked well, with the SEC taking responsibility for market-wide issues, while the States focus their attention on the issues most affecting individual investors and small businesses. I also believe that there is room for improved coordination and a more clearly defined allocation of responsibility between the States and the SEC. I support the goal of eliminating duplicative and overlapping regulations that do not provide any additional protections to investors or to the markets but which do serve to increase the costs of raising capital. I believe this bill draws brighter lines of responsibility between the States and the SEC, and streamlines the securities offering process for American businesses. However, I will withdraw my support if any changes are made to the bill that will have the effect of weakening the State role in policing sales practices, or that will in any way undermine the enforcement authority of State securities regulators or the ability of defrauded investors to recover their losses in court under State laws. Modernization of mutual fund oversight. This bill recognizes the fundamentally national character of the mutual fund industry by assigning exclusive responsibility for the routine review of mutual fund offering documents and related materials to the SEC and NASD. The legislation also encourages further innovation in the mutual fund industry by means of advertising prospectuses and fund of funds. While I understand that this section of the bill generally corresponds to a similar section contained in H.R. 3005 recently approved by the House Commerce Committee, I am troubled that the Senate version fails to incorporate two key provisions of the House bill that deal with Commission authority with respect to reporting and record keeping requirements. In closing, I want to say that it is my intention to carefully consider the feedback and comments we receive on this legislation--from Federal and State securities regulators--from representatives of the securities industry--and from investor advocates. I will work to revise any provisions that are identified as having the potential to upset the delicate balance between promoting capital formation and protecting investors that this bill now seeks to accomplish.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator for another minute.

Mr. BRYAN. Let me just say, although a number of us would have preferred our focus be exclusively balancing the budget and deferring any tax reductions until after that balanced budget was achieved, we recognized that the only way we could build a consensus to bring 22 of us together was if we yielded to those concessions by striking what I believe is a responsible compromise with those who would offer far more in terms of tax cuts, which I believe we can ill-afford to incur until we do balance the budget with a reasonable midline approach. Finally, let me just say, Mr. President, that I think the window of opportunity is narrowing. We have an opportunity in this Congress, with the momentum that this coalition has brought together, to achieve a positive and lasting result. I urge my colleagues to accept this proposal. I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, let me join with my colleagues on the floor in commending Senators Breaux and Chafee for their bipartisan leadership in bringing us to this moment. I think for the American people who have watched this body from the viewpoint of their television sets in their homes, or who have listened to what we have said about each other in countless news reports, it will come as a complete surprise that during a very labored and extended period of negotiations on this budget there was an absence of recrimination, there was an absence of harsh, partisan rhetoric at all points throughout the entire period of the past 7 months where we have endured two Government shutdowns and 13 continuing resolutions. Always we pushed forward, trying to achieve ultimately a balanced budget agreement that represented a consensus. Our coalition considered a number of balanced budget proposals. We looked at the President's proposal, we looked at the National Governors' proposal, and we looked at the House and Senate versions of the bill, and we included elements of each of these proposals in our final plan. Our burgeoning Federal deficit is the greatest domestic crisis facing our country today. It is devouring our savings, robbing our ability to invest in infrastructure and education, and saddling our children with a staggering debt that will eventually have to be paid. As recently as 1980, cumulative Federal debt in this country was $910 billion. A decade later that debt tripled. Today it stands at nearly $5 trillion. If we do not balance the budget today and if we continue on our path of irresponsible spending, here are a few examples of what will occur. In the year 2000, annual interest payments on the Federal deficit will grow to approximately $305 billion, an increase of more than 50 percent in just 4 years. And in that same year, interest payments on the debt will surpass defense spending and become the largest Federal expenditure. By the year 2012, unless policies changes are enacted, projected spending on entitlement programs and interest on the debt will grow so rapidly that they will consume all tax revenues collected by the Federal Government. In that same year of 2012, unless changes are made, theoretically we could close all Federal prisons, national parks, the Pentagon and eliminate spending and research and development, education, roads and bridges and still not have enough savings to eliminate the deficit. By the year 2030, to bring the deficit down to the current level, the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements and Tax Reform has concluded that either all Federal taxes would have to be increased by 85 percent or all Federal spending programs would have to be cut in half. Mr. President, history has shown that nothing is more desired and yet nothing is more avoided than the will to make the tough choices. The last time that we balanced the Federal budget, Richard Nixon was in the White House and the year was 1969. The centrist coalition balanced budget plan is fair. It restructures and reforms Federal programs that are inefficient while scaling back spending. We have adopted a responsible policy of gradual reduction in spending over 7 years to reach a true balanced budget. For instance, our balanced budget plan saves $106 billion in Medicare over 6 years and protects its long-term solvency. We expand the choices for Medicare beneficiaries by allowing them to remain in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare Program or to choose from a range of private managed care plans. By creating a new payment system for managed care and by slowing the rate of growth in payments to hospitals, physicians and other service providers, our plan extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Our Medicare reform plan saves $41 billion over 6 years and protects the most vulnerable in our Nation. In so doing, we incorporated another series of proposals advanced in a bipartisan fashion by our Nation's Governors. Our plan maintains a national guarantee of coverage for low- income pregnant women, children, the elderly and the disabled, and we allow States to design health care delivery systems which best suit their needs without obtaining waivers from the Federal Government. Under this plan, States can determine provider rates, create managed care programs and development home and community based options for seniors to help them out of their problems. Our welfare reform language saves $45 billion in 6 years and includes very strong work provisions as well.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, there has been, as my colleague from North Dakota has pointed out, a number of disappointments in terms of things that have reached the floor, and with the overhang of Presidential politics in this year. One of the most disturbing things to me is the power of special interests at work in this Congress and their effort to bring a piece of legislation to the floor, S. 1271, which we are told will reach the floor sometime in the next few weeks. That is the effort of a powerful lobby, well financed, very effective, the nuclear power lobby, to bring a proposal to locate an interim storage of high-level nuclear waste in my State of Nevada. One can hardly open a newspaper or one of the many Capitol Hill newsletters these days without seeing one of the nuclear power industry's many misleading, and in my view, intellectually dishonest advertisements urging Members of this body, of this Congress, to support S. 1271, which is the latest nuclear power industry's piece of legislation. There are many things wrong with S. 1271, Mr. President. The obvious reason for my strong interest in the bill is an utter and complete disregard for the rights and interests of public health and safety of the men and women who I represent, my fellow Nevadans. Contrary to the wishes of the great majority of Nevadans--Democrats, Republicans, independents, those who choose no political affiliation--the overwhelming majority are strongly opposed to this so-called interim storage facility. The problems with this legislation are more than a question of unfairness, which I will have occasion to speak to at some length during the debate on this issue. It is much more than unfairness, because most of the mistruths that are being spread about this legislation in the nuclear waste program in general affect not only my own State but many other States, as well. First and foremost, I think it is important to emphasize that this piece of legislation is unnecessary. It is unnecessary. I have served in this body long enough to know that on many pieces of legislation, it is a very difficult balance. Some things that you like, some changes that you do not, there are some pluses and minuses. But always there should be at least some overriding necessity for that piece of legislation to be acted upon. In this instance, there is absolutely no need at all. The scientific experts, experts independent of the nuclear power industry, independent of the environmental community, independent and in no way connected with my fellow constituents in Nevada, have concluded that there simply is no problem with leaving the high-level nuclear waste where it currently resides, and that is at the reactor sites. Most recently, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a Federal agency created by the Congress for the sole purpose of monitoring and commenting on the high-level nuclear waste program, that Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board recently stated, ``There is no compelling technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to a centralized storage facility for the next few years.'' Mr. President, that view has been endorsed by the Clinton administration as well because they can see through the transparency of the nuclear power industry's scare tactics. They have indicated that if this legislation should pass this Congress it will be vetoed. Let me say for those who have watched this issue over the years, scare tactics have become the kind of conduct that we expect from the industry. More than a decade ago we were told that without some type of interim storage, then called away-from- reactor storage, that nuclear reactors around America would have to close down. In fact, their prediction was by 1983, 13 years ago. Well, the Congress wisely rejected the overture by the nuclear power industry more than a decade ago, and not a single reactor has closed because of the absence of storage for the spent nuclear fuel rods. It is, in my judgment, a wiser policy and a more sensible policy that we make a determination only after we have a judgment as to the location of a permanent repository. That is what the language currently says, Mr. President, that there will be no decision to force a State or any jurisdiction to accept an interim storage until after the permanent repository program has made its own judgment. That, Mr. President, has not yet been done. This sensible approach, accepted by those who have independent judgment and are members of the scientific community, endorsed by this administration and by many others, does not satisfy the nuclear power industry. They are furious that their bluff has been called, that its scare tactics over the years have been sufficiently transparent, that most have been able to see through them, and they have been frustrated in their goal of establishing an interim storage facility. The risk that would be created by caving in to these special interest demands are substantial. In addition to creating overwhelming risk for those of us in Nevada, particularly because of its geographical proximity to the metropolitan area of Las Vegas, which is now home to 1 million people, this legislation would result in over 16,000 shipments of dangerous high-level nuclear waste to 43 States. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues and staff who are watching this issue and I apologize to America that we do not have the resources to have full-page ads in major newspapers across America and all of the various bulletins and pieces of literature issued covering and commenting on the operation of the Congress. I see the very able and distinguished Senator from Kansas, and I assure her I will not be long in my comments. I take the occasion to make her aware, as I do the distinguished occupant of the chair, we are talking about 43 different States that will be affected, 16,000 shipments. Much of that is located in the Midwest. The State of Kansas, if I might cite for my colleague's edification since she is on the floor, is a major transshipment corridor. The red indicates highway. The blue indicates rail. We have one, two, three, four major shipment routes to the State of Kansas, exposing communities--we will talk more about this when this issue comes to the floor--exposing communities to a great deal of risk if indeed an accident happens. We all hope that an accident does not happen. But most pencils in America are still made with an eraser. Mistakes occur--human error. We know that. Whether it is Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, or whatever the nuclear disasters have been in recent years, there are human failures, mistakes, neglect, all of those things, and they are not likely to change as a result of anything that we have done or are likely to do on the floor of the Senate. I know that the chairman of the Energy Committee spoke yesterday at some length about that. I can understand why he does not share the concerns. Alaska is not a transshipment corridor, so that none of his constituents would be exposed to the risk, as 43 States and some 50 million of us that live along one of these transportation routes might be affected. I might say--and I believe the occupant of the chair served at the municipal level of government--there is no assurance in this legislation that any financial assistance is provided to communities who are placed at risk. None. No assurance whatsoever. So these communities exposed to this risk will have to bear that responsibility on their own. Let me just say that for some of us--and the occupant of the chair and I are from two States that have no nuclear reactors at all; yet, we will bear the burden of those transshipments--all unnecessary, all unnecessary because our States will be affected. In the great State of Oklahoma, there are at least three rail shipment routes that will pass through that great State. I can cite State after State, and I will have occasion to do so later. The chairman of the Energy Committee, in addressing this yesterday, tended to dismiss any concerns about safety. ``Nothing to worry about. This is all under control.'' Mr. President, I have said many times on the floor that I was in the eighth grade in early 1951 when the first nuclear atmospheric test was conducted at Frenchman Flats in Nevada, about 60 to 70 miles from my hometown of Las Vegas. We were assured at the time, ``There are no risks. There is nothing to worry about. The scientific community has this under control.'' Indeed, people were invited to go up to observe this great scientific phenomenon. Benches were established so you could go up, if you were part of the press corps. Those of us who were in school, as part of science programs, were invited to rise early in the morning and see the great flash from the nuclear detonation, see the cloud, and wait for the seismic shock to hit us, and calculate with some precision how far from ground zero we were from the place where the shot took place. Community reaction was overwhelming. Stores, retail establishments, all embraced this new nuclear phenomenon. Well, it is now 45 years later. Nobody buys that argument anymore. No scientist worthy of his or her degree would ever suggest with absolute certainty that we can detonate a nuclear blast in a 70-mile range of a major community. Nobody will assert that. Do you know what the consequences of that trust us is? Today, every Member of this Congress, every taxpayer in America is paying for those poor, innocent victims downwind of where those atmospheric shots occurred, who suffer from cancer and other genetic effects as a result of those experiments. Trust us, you need not worry. We are talking about something that is lethal. And those of us who would bear the burden of this do not have the same sense of safety and assurance that the chairman of the Energy Committee has. Mr. President, I know that this debate has been framed largely as a result of the special interests of the nuclear power lobby. Many of my colleagues, I am sure, have not heard from their constituents. Today, I take the opportunity to acquaint Americans and my colleagues and staff, who are watching our discussion, that this is not just a Nevada issue. Obviously, we feel powerfully aggrieved at this outrageous conduct that suggests that not only are we to be studied for a permanent repository, but an interim facility will be placed there as well. My point is that ours is a lonely voice, a small State of 1.6 million people and 4 Members of Congress. We cannot match the nuclear power industries' finances, the phalanx of lobbyists that they have from one end of Capitol Hill to the other. But there is much at risk. It is not just Nevada; it is 43 States, 50 million people. I urge my colleagues to get engaged in this debate and understand what is at risk. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Kansas for allowing me to extend my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.