Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in unveiling this important bipartisan legislation. Our proposal to offer a prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries is sound, comprehensive, and workable. We are introducing this bill for a very simple reason: the majority of Medicare beneficiaries lack meaningful prescription drug coverage, and we have an historic opportunity to do something about. The inadequacy of the current Medicare benefits package is clear. It simply does not make sense for a health insurance program to exclude coverage of one of the most critical components of health care. In 1996, 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries had at least one chronic condition; drugs are frequently the best way to manage those conditions. Why offer hospitalization and physician visits to treat high blood pressure, heart problems, and depression, but not one of the most effective treatment options? Many Medicare beneficiaries are faced with the choice of paying extremely high prices at retail outlets--much higher than the prices paid by those with coverage--or going without medically necessary prescription drug. With bipartisan support and unprecedented budget surpluses we can give our seniors and those with disabilities another choice: to enroll in a Medicare prescription drug plan that is guaranteed to be accessible and affordable. What should this plan look life? The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act contains several important provisions: First, it provides prescription drugs as a defined, comprehensive and integral component of the Medicare Program. We need to be able to say exactly what we are promising seniors, and we need to make sure they will get it--the only way to do that is to include it in the basic Medicare benefits package along with everything else. Relying on private insurers to offer this benefit ``would result in a false promise'' to use the words of the President of the HIAA. Second, our bill provides the greatest help to those with the greatest need--beneficiaries with the lowest incomes and the highest drug expenditures. We do that by providing additional subsidies for those with the lowest-incomes, increasing the government's share of coinsurance as the beneficiaries out-of-pocket costs increase, and income-relating the premium for high-income beneficiaries. The bottom line: all seniors will be guaranteed access to affordable drugs, and will have the peace of mind of knowing that full coverage is provided for any and all expenses above $4000. Third, ``The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act'' encourages maximum competition to achieve the greatest discounts, and uses the private sector to deliver and manage the benefit. Finally, it is consistent with the need to strengthen and modernize the Medicare program overall. Providing drug coverage is the first step, but more work is needed. We will be introducing legislation soon that takes the next steps. The bill we are offering today bridges the gap between the proposals offered by the President and the House GOP. It gives beneficiaries what they need: long-overdue coverage of prescription drugs, and also injects competition into the program and provides choices for beneficiaries. This is the first bill to offer universal, guaranteed, affordable, fully-defined comprehensive coverage--no limits, not gaps, no gimmicks. Beneficiaries will know what they are getting, and they will know without a doubt that the benefit will actually be provided. ``The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act'' is not a tough call. It will accomplish our goals of providing affordable, accessible coverage, and it will work. This is legislation that Congress should enact this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we do just that.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in unveiling this important bipartisan legislation. Our proposal to offer a prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries is sound, comprehensive, and workable. We are introducing this bill for a very simple reason: the majority of Medicare beneficiaries lack meaningful prescription drug coverage, and we have an historic opportunity to do something about. The inadequacy of the current Medicare benefits package is clear. It simply does not make sense for a health insurance program to exclude coverage of one of the most critical components of health care. In 1996, 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries had at least one chronic condition; drugs are frequently the best way to manage those conditions. Why offer hospitalization and physician visits to treat high blood pressure, heart problems, and depression, but not one of the most effective treatment options? Many Medicare beneficiaries are faced with the choice of paying extremely high prices at retail outlets--much higher than the prices paid by those with coverage--or going without medically necessary prescription drug. With bipartisan support and unprecedented budget surpluses we can give our seniors and those with disabilities another choice: to enroll in a Medicare prescription drug plan that is guaranteed to be accessible and affordable. What should this plan look life? The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act contains several important provisions: First, it provides prescription drugs as a defined, comprehensive and integral component of the Medicare Program. We need to be able to say exactly what we are promising seniors, and we need to make sure they will get it--the only way to do that is to include it in the basic Medicare benefits package along with everything else. Relying on private insurers to offer this benefit ``would result in a false promise'' to use the words of the President of the HIAA. Second, our bill provides the greatest help to those with the greatest need--beneficiaries with the lowest incomes and the highest drug expenditures. We do that by providing additional subsidies for those with the lowest-incomes, increasing the government's share of coinsurance as the beneficiaries out-of-pocket costs increase, and income-relating the premium for high-income beneficiaries. The bottom line: all seniors will be guaranteed access to affordable drugs, and will have the peace of mind of knowing that full coverage is provided for any and all expenses above $4000. Third, ``The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act'' encourages maximum competition to achieve the greatest discounts, and uses the private sector to deliver and manage the benefit. Finally, it is consistent with the need to strengthen and modernize the Medicare program overall. Providing drug coverage is the first step, but more work is needed. We will be introducing legislation soon that takes the next steps. The bill we are offering today bridges the gap between the proposals offered by the President and the House GOP. It gives beneficiaries what they need: long-overdue coverage of prescription drugs, and also injects competition into the program and provides choices for beneficiaries. This is the first bill to offer universal, guaranteed, affordable, fully-defined comprehensive coverage--no limits, not gaps, no gimmicks. Beneficiaries will know what they are getting, and they will know without a doubt that the benefit will actually be provided. ``The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act'' is not a tough call. It will accomplish our goals of providing affordable, accessible coverage, and it will work. This is legislation that Congress should enact this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we do just that.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I ask my colleague to suspend. We have run into a couple of potential language issues that I need a couple of minutes to explore. I can assure my colleague it is not my purpose to delay, but there are some language changes here that we need to check out.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. To be sure, we are saying the entire provision, as I understand the observation of the Senator from Washington, all the language incorporated in this motion will expire September 30, 2001.

Mr. BRYAN. May I ask the Senator one other question?

Mr. BRYAN. There was some discussion about the use of the words ``recommend'' and ``proposed.'' Can the Senator state his intention with respect to that language?

Mr. BRYAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.

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

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I realize this debate has raged on for some period of time this afternoon. I will simply make a couple of points in support of the motion to instruct conferees. Fuel economy affects Americans in a very practical way. We have seen in recent weeks the escalating prices of gasoline, prices that have caused Americans who come to the gas station real sticker shock. These are some of the numbers we have seen: $1.54 a gallon on the east coast; in my own part of the country, $1.59. Those numbers appear to be going up. The effect of this is to require American families who are dependent upon automobiles for transportation--that is most of the people who live in a western State, such as my own in Nevada --to have less spendable income for other family needs and requirements. If it is possible to reduce the amount of money they spend by increasing fuel economy--that is, getting more miles to the gallon--it makes sense for every family, not only in my own State, but across the Nation. We are proposing lifting the gag rule, to strip the blindfold off, to unplug our ears, and simply allow the Department of Transportation to examine the technology of the past 25 years--because it has been 25 years since we have applied new fuel economy standards in America--and see if we can't get better fuel economy and still leave a full range of vehicle choice to American consumers. I find it hard to believe that is not a win-win for everyone. It is a win for the consumer. It is a win for the American automobile industry. It is a win for the economy. Not only do we get better fuel economy and save costs for the American motorist, but we can also help to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are held vulnerable and hostage to a certain extent. We see that every time OPEC tweaks up or tweaks down the production quotas with an instantaneous response in the market. That is what has happened with respect to these increases. OPEC recognizes how vulnerable we are. We import 54 percent of the oil consumed in this country; 40 percent of that is attributable to the automotive sector. OPEC knows, because of our dependence on imported oil, if they can get their own act together to impose some production restraints, they reduce their production, the cost to the consumer who is filling up his or her car with gasoline is going up. If we can be a little less vulnerable by reducing the amounts of oil we import, won't that be a good thing? That is precisely what occurred in the 1970s. We were vulnerable then, as we are now, to events that occurred. We had the embargo, the fall of the Shah of Iran, and our economy was sent into a tailspin. Indeed, economically, the 1970s were a very difficult time for our country, as people who lived during that era will recall. By passing the CAFE legislation of 1975, we reduced the amount of oil we consumed each and every day by some 3 million barrels. We are suggesting fuel economy standards are beginning to decline. If one looks at the recent numbers, one will see that after two decades of progress, fuel economy averages are declining. In 1975, we got less than 14 miles per gallon on average. That peaked during 1988, 1999, and it has declined. The reason it is declining is that Americans are choosing to purchase trucks and sport utility vehicles. That is their choice. Light trucks and sport utility vehicles make up nearly 50 percent of the market. Shouldn't we be able to look at the technology of the last 25 years and apply that and see if we might not get fuel economy that would make it possible for Americans to drive light trucks, sport utility vehicles, and get better fuel economy? Is there anything wrong with that? I am hard pressed to come up with an argument in opposition to that. Here is what we have. From the time I was a child, I have been infatuated with the automobile. I have shared on this floor on many occasions the excitement I experienced as a youngster each new model year, going down to the local dealership, peering in the dealership, and wondering what that year's model was going to be. If I have been improvident in terms of my expenditures, probably in no area is that more evident than I have loved automobiles. I have purchased them, and I love them. So I do not speak as a Senator who has an antipathy to the automobile. I love my cars. I am very dependent, and I recognize most Americans are as well. I say with great respect that this is an industry that has almost a Pavlovian response when it comes to suggestions that technology ought to be applied to improved fuel efficiency or some aspect of technology. The auto industry had fought us for decades on airbags. I am privileged to join the distinguished Senator from Washington on this issue. He and I were instrumental in the conference of the reauthorization of the highway bill a decade ago to get that legislation requiring airbags. Today, many Americans survive auto accidents, and of those who have had injuries, their injuries are much less than might have been expected but for airbags. The industry resisted catalytic converters and the industry resisted tenaciously in the 1970s this legislation that we called Corporate Average Fuel Economy. I realize that is ancient history, but is it? One gets a sense of deja vu on the floor when one listens to the arguments against even permitting the examination of new CAFE requirements. The motion to strike simply deletes reference to a rider that has been added to the Transportation appropriations bill each and every year since 1995 that says that the Department of Transportation may not consider moving forward on new fuel economy standards. The sponsors of this action do not seek to establish a numerical standard but simply to say let the Department of Transportation examine the technology and see if a new standard could be imposed that would enable us to apply technology, reduce the number of gallons of gas we need to operate our vehicles, save consumers money, reduce our dependence on imported oil, and also to clean up our air. These are public policy issues. One is reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Another is reducing the trade imbalance, which every economist will tell you is a point of vulnerability in an economy which has extraordinarily performed in 112 consecutive months of economic expansion--without precedent in American history. But continued trade deficits of this magnitude are a problem. About a third of those trade deficits are attributable to the amount of oil we import. We could reduce our dependency. There is not an American city of any size that is not concerned about air pollution. Most scientists will tell you, whether or not they have fully subscribed to the global warming theory, that it is not a good thing for us to continue to pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as we are. With better fuel economy, we would reduce those emissions as well. What is the response? Unfortunately, the industry has chosen to invoke scare tactics. In farm country they are telling America's farmers they may not be able to get and use a pickup truck. For those recreationists who tow vehicles, whether they are boats or horse trailers, they are saying they may no longer be able to participate in this particular avocation--whether it is boating or horseback riding-- because we are not going to be able to build a vehicle that will pull a trailer, that will allow them to transport their boat to the lake, or their horse to an event where they want to race or show that horse. They are telling others it will be impossible for us to produce the sport utility vehicles that they love, whether they love them for comfort, convenience, or to get out on the back trails of America and do a little off-road driving. They will not be able to do that as well. Does this sound familiar? Those arguments, cast in the context of the 1970s, were the arguments that were advanced by the auto industry then. I must say, if the past is prologue, this would be a classic example. In the testimony on the CAFE legislation in 1974, the Ford Motor Company testified as follows, referring to CAFE, which would have and did ultimately double the fuel economy that automobiles get, from less than 14 to more than 27 miles per gallon, in a decade. This proposal would require a Ford product line consisting of either all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles-- Ford's smallest vehicle in the 1970s-- or some mix of vehicles ranging from a sub-sub-compact to perhaps a Maverick. That was a small vehicle as well, slightly larger than the Pinto. That was 1974. All one need do is change the words ``sub-Pinto-sized and Maverick,'' and add in there ``light trucks and sport utility vehicles,'' that we would not be able to offer those if this proposal were advanced, and we would have the contemporary argument, the argument that is made in the year 2000. Chrysler Motors said: In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines and car models, including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing sub- compact-size cars. . . . Does the resonance sound familiar to any of us? It was a pretty familiar line of argument. And General Motors said: This legislation would have the effect of placing restrictions on the availability of 5- and 6-passenger cars. Nobody wanted that. Those were all tactics that the industry employed to frighten the American public. I am sure none of the sponsors, in 1974--and I was not a Member of this body--intended to deprive Americans of vehicle choice. I do not think anybody had in mind to prevent American families from purchasing station wagons or four-door, full-size, six-passenger sedans. I can assure you, the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, we do not. We do not preclude or attempt to preclude it. In fact, some of us own sport utility vehicles and we want the element of choice. All we are saying is please give us an opportunity to look at the technology that would be available. Those owners of those sport utility vehicles, if we could get 4 or 5 or 10 miles per gallon more, would pay a lot less when they go to fill up at the gas pump. I say to my colleagues, whether you believe there is a precise number you can achieve, in terms of increased fuel economy--and some have indicated we could double that once again--or whether you believe improvements more incremental and modest are possible, under the current legislation, it will be impossible for us to do so because of a rider that restrains our ability to do so. That simply does not make much sense. So all we are asking for is an opportunity for the Department of Transportation to examine that technology. One would have to be a neo- Luddite to believe that in 25 years, a quarter of a century in which more technology advancements have occurred than in any 25 years of recorded history, of recorded civilization, that somehow the auto industry is not able to take advantage of some of those technology improvements. So we simply ask for this opportunity. I hope my colleagues will support our position. I know as I speak, there are some discussions occurring off the floor that may lead to a compromise. I hope such a compromise will be possible. But it is a compromise that ought to let the technology, not the politics of scare and fright, dictate what a public policy for America ought to be. If we can improve that, and reduce the cost that motorists have to use their cars for work or recreation, if we can make America less dependent on imported oil, if we can ease the balance of payments that creates a potential threat to future economic expansion, if we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere, would that not be a good thing? Wouldn't Americans--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, libertarians--embrace that concept? Wouldn't the far left and the far right move to the political center and say, yes, that makes sense? I believe it is possible. All we seek is the opportunity to let American technology try. I suppose, if I have a quarrel with my friends in the auto industry, it is that they have less confidence than I do in themselves and their ability. Let me say, what they did from 1975 to 1987 was extraordinary. They doubled fuel economy--doubled it. And they doubled it at the same time they provided a full range of vehicle choice. By the early 1990s, the largest automobile built by the Ford Motor Company--the largest automobile--got better fuel economy than the smallest Ford automobile produced in 1975, the little Pinto. That is something about which to rejoice. I say congratulations. I am proud as an American that that kind of technology was possible, and I simply say to an industry that in 1974 believed it could accomplish nothing: Have confidence in yourself. Let all of those entrepreneurial juices flow, and we know, when given a chance, American industry produces technological marvels that are the envy of the world; give us that chance. That is what we ask of our colleagues. I reserve the remainder of my time, as we are working on negotiations. How much time remains on each side?

Mr. BRYAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate the explanation of the Senator from Michigan. I say with great respect, I believe and I recall--and I may be in error as well--that the language ``proposed'' was originally offered by my friend from Michigan. I know he has a different recollection, and we are not, obviously, going to resolve it. I know he has been acting in good faith, and I know he knows I have been asking in good faith.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter that will be before the body tomorrow. That is a motion to instruct conferees on an issue we have debated last year and in previous years dealing with corporate average fuel economy, CAFE. That is an acronym that many Americans are not familiar with, but it is something that can have a profound and important impact on their lives. Perhaps a little background will be instructive. In the early 1970s, our economy was sent into a convulsion as a result of our dependence on imported oil, primarily from the Middle East. The OPEC oil embargo, followed by the fall of the Shah of Iran later in the decade, sent fuel prices skyrocketing, plummeted the economy into a situation known as ``stagflation,'' and the effect was devastating. Congress responded in 1974 with a piece of legislation designed to make the U.S. less dependent upon foreign oil and to provide for better fuel economy, thereby saving American consumers millions of dollars each year in fuel costs and improving the quality of the air and reducing our trade deficit. In 1974, before these CAFE or fuel economies were established for the first time, the average fuel economy of all vehicles in America was 13.8 miles per gallon. As a result of those CAFE standards adopted in 1975, the current average is 28.1 miles per gallon. That is slightly more than twice the average economy in 1974. The effect of that has produced each and every day a savings of 3 million barrels of oil that would otherwise have been consumed. That issue was not an easy issue for the Congress to deal with in 1974 because testimony before the congressional committees suggested if such standards were required, and they were set on an incremental basis to be expanded over the course of a decade, it was asserted that terrible things would happen in terms of consumer choice and size of the vehicle. In 1974, the Ford Motor Company testified this proposal for the fuel economy standards, which ultimately doubled fuel economy, would require a Ford product line consisting of either all sub-Pinto- sized vehicles--some may recall that was the smallest automobile that Ford made at the time--or some mix of vehicles ranging from a ``sub- subcompact'' to perhaps a Maverick. The clear thrust of the testimony is, if these fuel economy standards are imposed upon the industry, a full-sized four-door vehicle would be impossible to produce. Let me skip for a moment to the present. Today, the largest automobile--I am not talking about a sport utility vehicle--that Ford makes has better fuel economy than the smallest produced in 1974. There is, indeed, a full range of vehicle choice available to American consumers. Chrysler Motors also joined in with the Big Three and made this statement in 1974: In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines and car models, including most full-sized sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing sub- compact-sized cars--or even smaller ones. That was the testimony by Chrysler. General Motors went on to say: This legislation would have the effect of placing restrictions on the availability of 5 and 6 passenger cars-- regardless of consumer needs or intended use of vehicles. Once this legislation was enacted, the automotive industry, with some of the best and brightest engineering minds anywhere in the world, went to work. Indeed, astonishing technological developments occurred and today Americans enjoy a full range of automobiles in terms of size and choice. We have been successful in saving 3 million barrels of oil each and every day, reducing to some extent our dependence on imported foreign fuel and alleviating, in part, the trade deficit. Unfortunately, no new fuel requirements have been enacted since 1975. Once again, the auto industry is suggesting that if, indeed, new fuel economy standards are required, that customer choice, size of vehicle, and a whole host of safety concerns, will place the American public at risk. I am not sure what it is. I happen to be an automobile buff. I am of the age that I can recall the excitement of the introduction each year of the new models, the changes and the configuration of lights, the chrome, the fins, all of the things that in my generation were pretty exciting stuff. And I love automobiles today. So I come to the floor as a Member of this body not with any antipathy toward automobiles. I freely acknowledge both my dependence and my love of the American automobile. However, I must say there is something that must be part of a corporate culture in the auto industry which has resisted over the years virtually any significant technological improvement dealing with fuel efficiency, safety, or air pollution. For decades, the automobile industry resisted the introduction of airbags. It took my colleagues, Senator Gorton and I, a decade ago to get that language changed. Today, Americans have a choice in their safety. Many lives have been saved as a result of that. But the auto industry strenuously resisted that effort. Indeed, when catalytic converter technology came online, even though the engineers acknowledged its significance, there was great resistance to requiring the introduction of catalytic converters. Our air is cleaner, our tailpipe emissions substantially less. Some of the major cities of America that still struggle with pollution now have perhaps twice as many vehicles on the road, but their air is cleaner than it would have been but for these technological advancements. There must be something in the corporate culture of the automobile industry that resists this technology. These are remarkably able and talented engineers, the best and brightest. I wish they had more confidence in themselves. We are placed in an anomalous situation wherein none of the technology that has been available for the past quarter of a century, 25 years, that might have enabled us to move forward and to improve fuel economy, to reduce our dependence on imported oil, has been used to help improve quality. Since 1975, a rider has been added in the other body to this appropriations bill that prevents the Department of Transportation from even considering, even looking at any technological changes. In effect, it is a provision that requires us all to be deaf, dumb, and blind to any technology that has been developed in the last quarter century. I need not remind my colleagues and the American public that the last 25 years has been the most remarkable quarter of a century since human history was recorded in terms of technological advances; 25 years ago all but a handful of people would have been totally mystified if the term ``Internet'' was used. E-commerce was not a part of our conversation. Nobody discussed e-mail or m-commerce. Indeed, most Americans had never heard of cellular telephones. I just cite but two of the more obvious and more dramatic technological changes that have had a profound impact upon our economy. Here are the facts that we confront today. Unfortunately, once again in America we are becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil. Mr. President, 54 percent of the oil consumed in America is imported. That leaves us vulnerable to the vicissitudes of foreign policy considerations, instabilities, and political crises in the other parts of the world. Our thirst for fuel continues. Now, even more timely, we are seeing the price of gasoline rise to record levels. Earlier in the year it achieved a high point, then dropped down, and now, with the onset of the heavy driving season in the summer, we are seeing those prices increase. So Americans are beginning to get hit in the pocketbook. About 40 percent of all the oil we consume in America is consumed by automobiles and light trucks or the sport utility vehicles. So we have an opportunity to consider a number of public policy issues. No. 1, is it possible to achieve improved fuel economy, still leaving us a range of choice in selection of our vehicles? Would anyone argue that would be a bad result if it could be achieved? Fuel costs are responsible for roughly a third of the enormous trade deficit we generate each year in this country, the one economic indicator--in a field which otherwise has nothing but bright horizons in front of us-- that is troubling to us economically. We cannot long sustain those kinds of trade imbalances, not for an indefinite period of time. So we have the opportunity, by a policy initiative, to perhaps reduce at least the one-third of that trade deficit that is attributed to the foreign oil we import each year. Would anyone argue it would be a bad policy for us to be less dependent and, therefore, to reduce our trade deficit to an extent by improving fuel economy? I think not. I believe this past winter was the warmest on record in the Northeast. There is no question dramatic changes are occurring to our climate. Not everyone will agree those are attributable to global warming, but I think there is a growing consensus in the scientific sector that global warming is for real, that there is an impact that is occurring. One of the elements that contributes to that global warming is carbon dioxide emissions. With improved fuel economy, we reduce those emissions. So there are three public policy initiatives that could all benefit if we could improve fuel economy. We would reduce the amount of fuel we consume in the automotive sector; we could reduce our trade imbalance; we could improve the quality of air; and as Americans are increasingly concerned about the price of filling up at the gas station, we could save Americans millions and millions of dollars each year. Notwithstanding all those positive public policy potentials, we are left with a situation that the legislation before us will preclude the Department of Transportation from even looking at the possibility that an increase could occur. So the purpose of the motion to strike, which Senator Gorton and Senator Feinstein and I and others will be offering tomorrow, is not to set a standard at a precise or numerical number-- that was done in 1975--but simply permitting the Department of Transportation to examine the technology that has been developed in the last 25 years. I believe it is almost impossible to argue that in a quarter of a century there is not new technology that could be applied to automobile efficiency that would not enable us to improve fuel economy. To resist that argument is akin to saying, as some did in the early part of the 19th century, we ought to lock up the U.S. Patent Office and close it down because everything that can be invented has already been invented; there are no new inventions. That is utter folly. We know the technology of the last 25 years has been remarkable, extensive, and pervasive in its impact. So our plea tomorrow as we go to the floor will be: Unmuzzle, unshackle, allow us to remove the blindfold and look at the technology in a way we can improve fuel economy, in a way that will produce real benefits for consumers, reducing the amount they have to pay, helping clean up the environment, reducing the trade deficit, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. These are public policy issues that we ought to be able to examine without the restrictive riders that have been added each year since 1995. I look forward, as part of a bipartisan effort, to continuing this discussion and argument tomorrow as we further process this legislation. My purpose today is simply to alert my colleagues that this debate will occur sometime tomorrow and ask them--indeed, plead with them--to simply allow us to look at the technology. We are not mandating anything. We are not setting any standards. We are not making any policy judgments or pronouncements other than let's take a look at what the technology of the last quarter of a century might make possible and see if we cannot get better fuel economy, particularly on the sport utility vehicles and light trucks that today make up such a substantial part of the product mix that Americans are purchasing for their personal transportation. I yield the floor. I do not believe any of my colleagues seek recognition. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as the distinguished ranking member, for agreeing to accept this critical amendment relating to full-time manning for the National Guard. Both of these leaders have been strongly supportive of our efforts, past and present, to ensure that the National Guard has the resources it needs to perform its dual missions, and I want to express my personal gratitude for their leadership and support of the National Guard over the course of several years. As co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, there is clearly no higher priority for the National Guard in this fiscal year than the need to provide sufficient resources for full-time operational support. These full-time personnel are the backbone of the National Guard, and make no mistake about it, if we fail to provide sufficient full-time support, there will be a noticeable and precipitous decline in the ability of the National Guard to fulfill its mission both to the states and as part of the National Force Structure. The amendment we are offering today will authorize $38 million to provide an additional 526 AGRs and 771 Technicians for the Army National Guard. Frankly, Mr. President, I would have liked to have gone further, and provided the Guard with the personnel they need to achieve the minimal personnel levels identified by the National Guard Bureau of 23,500 AGRs and 25,500 Technicians. But like the incremental increases that were provided last year, this amendment represents an important step towards achieving that overall goal. Our amendment has well over 60 cosponsors from both sides of the aisles. Not many issues attract this much support from across the ideological spectrum, and I interpret that as a Senate endorsement of the critical missions the National Guard performs, ranging from providing important emergency and other support services to their states, to participating in international peacekeeping missions across the globe, including Bosnia and Kosovo. It should be noted that both the Senate majority leader and the Senate minority leader are original cosponsors, as are the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The amendment is also supported by the National Guard Bureau, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Adjutants General Association of the United States, and other organizations. The National Guard represents 34 percent of our Total Force Army Strength and 19 percent of our Total Air Force Strength. Nearly half a million Americans serve in the National Guard, playing a critical complementary role to their active duty counterparts, and we have an obligation and a responsibility to make sure every Guard unit and armory across the country has the support personnel it requires to function efficiently and effectively. I am hopeful that with such broad, bipartisan support from the members of the Senate and the Armed Services Committee, we can continue to provide the resources required by the National Guard that will allow these dedicated Americans to perform their mission in support of the Armed Forces of the United States. Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank my fellow co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Bond, for his authorship and leadership on this amendment. Senator Bond continues to demonstrate an impassioned commitment to the National Guard, our reserve components, and all of our Armed Forces. I also wish to recognize and thank Mr. James Pitchford and Ms. Shelby Bell of Senator Bond's staff for their hard work on this successful, bipartisan effort. amendment no. 3250 (Purpose: To provide compensation and benefits to Department of energy employees and contractor employees for exposure to beryllium, radiation, and other toxic substances) (The text of the Amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the quality of education in this country is of enormous concern to the American people, and is a defining issue in Congress this year. I believe that few priorities are more important than the future of our Nation's youth. When Americans lack education and skills, demands on Government support rise, and the long-term financial costs to the Nation are enormous. Our primary goal during this debate is to find the best way to bring every one of our students up to a high level of academic performance, in order that they may be successful, contributing members of the national and global economy. As a former Governor of Nevada, I believe that education is first a State and local responsibility. Creative and innovative education programs have been initiated by many governors at the state level, and the local school districts who interact with students and families in their communities on a daily basis are better positioned than federal bureaucrats to identify their schools' specific needs, and to target the appropriate resources to meet these needs. The primary purpose of the New Democrat amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Bayh and of which I am a cosponsor, is to deliver better educational results by helping states and local school districts raise academic achievement for all children. The amendment recognizes that the Federal Government has an important role to play in working with states and localities on education. It also calls on the Federal Government to work with states to strengthen the standards by which states and local districts are held accountable for increased student achievement, and at the same time, to give states the flexibility to choose the programs that work best for their districts and schools. The Federal Government has assumed the specific responsibility of ensuring that all students, especially those students who face significant disadvantages, receive a quality education, thereby preparing them to function as successful adults and to lead fulfilling lives. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment fulfills this responsibility by setting clear national goals. These goals are to increase targeting to schools with highest poverty concentrations; to consolidate professional development and teacher training initiatives to improve teacher, principal and administrator quality; to help immigrant students become proficient in English and achieve high levels of learning in all subjects; and to stimulate ``High Performance Initiatives'' by giving states money to choose what programs work best for raising the academic achievement of their students. States can use this ``High Performance Initiatives'' money to focus on priorities they deem necessary to the education of their students; priorities such as innovative school improvement strategies, expanding after-school and summer school opportunities, improving school safety and discipline, and developing technological literacy. These are all important goals. More specifically, the Lieberman/Bayh amendment operates under the philosophy that getting money to those students who need it the most is crucial, and it strengthens our national commitment to targeting aid to disadvantaged students and schools. Under title I, the New Democrat alternative's formula sends 75 percent of new money to states and local districts with the highest concentrations of poverty. The amendment also distributes teacher quality money based on poverty and student population, and distributes money to help immigrant students become proficient in English and achieve high levels of learning by targeting aid to states with high concentrations of student with limited English proficiency. Within the parameters of the Lieberman/Bayh amendment, states and localities get flexibility to choose what programs and strategies work best to raise their students' achievement. The amendment strengthens the decisionmaking authority of state and local officials by eliminating some of the strings that come attached to federal dollars. Under this new approach, states develop their own academic standards, their own assessments for measuring annual progress in student achievement, and their own goals for improving school performance. States also choose which initiatives and programs are of priority, and which will work best to raise academic achievement. At the same time that states have this new flexibility, national interests and federal goals are protected and advanced, both fiscally and educationally. The new Democrat alternative does this by holding states accountable for meeting the standards they set. Money is not enough to raise student achievement. Along with the added money and flexibility in the amendment, states and districts are given the responsibility of setting performance goals for their students, and of demonstrating clear progress towards these goals. Not all currently funded educational programs produce the great results we are looking for. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment sets measurable standards so that states and local districts can evaluate the programs they are using, and see what is and what is not raising their students' academic achievement. The states have the flexibility to choose the programs that work best for their student populations, but the Federal Government, under the Lieberman/Bayh amendment, holds them accountable for raising student achievement. Under the new Democrat alternative, there are real consequences for chronic failure. For the first time ever, states that fail to meet the performance objectives under any title would be penalized. After 3 years of failure, a state's administrative funding would be cut by 50 percent, and after 4 years of failure, programming funds to the state under the ``High Performance Initiatives'' title would be cut by 30 percent. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment also requires states to impose sanctions on local school districts that fail to meet annual performance goals, and rewards states who exceed their goals by receiving even greater flexibility in using their program funding to meet their own specific priorities. In this way, Federal funding is directly linked to the performance of schools in meeting the goals the schools themselves have set. In summary, the new Democrat alternative was written with the underlying philosophy that state and local officials are better positioned than Federal bureaucrats to identify their specific needs, and to target the appropriate resources to meet these needs. At the same time, the amendment sets clear national goals and holds states responsible for producing progress toward these goals. The current system is far less fiscally responsible than the Lieberman/Bayh approach because it does nothing to ensure that taxpayer dollars are getting a real return on their investment. In the Lieberman/Bayh amendment, the Federal Government maintains control and plays a role in setting national priorities in education. It also strengthens our national commitment to target aid to disadvantaged students and schools, and holds states accountable for producing results in exchange for the flexibility. In conclusion, I would like to express my support for the new Democrat alternative amendment, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Bayh, because I believe it will significantly and positively reform the current education system, while successfully raising the academic achievement of all students.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, for the remaining 5 or 6 minutes, let me just complete my thoughts on the issue of health and safety because I think this is the overriding issue. EPA has proposed a standard of 15 millirems, consistent with what was done in New Mexico. S. 1287, in its original form, doubled this. We are debating this issue today because the nuclear utilities do not want the 15-millirem standard. That is what we are talking about. One can have a difference of opinion as to whether or not nuclear power is good or bad or whether Yucca Mountain is or is not the proper scientific site. I might say, parenthetically, no one has ever made a determination that Yucca Mountain will meet the suitability standards. That remains to be seen. But how in God's world can we say we ought to change a health and public safety standard, one that is set by independent agents? Let me point out that the history of matters nuclear has indicated that we have underestimated the risk and danger to public health. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, we exposed military veterans at Bikini and Eniwetok to levels of radiation exposure that today would be absolutely a crime. In my own youth, while growing up in Nevada, watching the detonations at Frenchman's Flat, where they dropped nuclear bombs out of B-29s, we were told it is ``absolutely safe, don't worry about a thing.'' Today, we know that nobody in his or her right mind would suggest that anyplace in the world. Indeed, the tragedy is that people downwind from that died of cancer and have suffered from other mutations. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country who helped us in America prevail in the cold war, working in our nuclear weapons production facilities, in the nuclear testing program in Nevada, who were told the diseases that they suffered from and the suffering and the death that families had endured had nothing to do with radiation. Today, to the great credit of this administration and the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Richardson, we now acknowledge that it was wrong, that people did become ill, and people did die because of radiation. Every person in this Chamber will recall in his or her own personal life how, and today, when you get an x ray at your dentist, or a chest x ray, the amount of radioactive exposure you have is much less than it was earlier because we are fearful of what the consequences of this exposure over a period of time can mean. Many will recall going to the local shoe store and getting on a fluoroscope; you could see the bones in your feet and your mom or your dad would look at that just to see whether or not you had the correct fitting. That was exposure to radioactivity. There is no place in the country where that would be tolerated today. What did we learn? We learned the risk of radioactivity is much greater than we had originally thought. To conclude this aspect of my discussion today, the whole history of radioactivity exposure, in terms of its impact upon us as human beings, has been that the standards ought to be increased in terms of safety. We have done that in the private sector; we have done that publicly. Now this legislation would suggest that we abandon that, and that in the name of helping out nuclear power industries--utilities particularly--we should reject the health and safety standard. It was good enough for our friends in New Mexico, and I support that, but never objected to. We simply say, look, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Fifteen millirems is within the range of the National Academy of Sciences. To do anything less is a cynical and cavalier disregard for the public health of citizens in America generally, and Nevadans particularly. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 20 minutes. The proponents of this legislation, who would have us override the Presidential veto, proclaim this is an environmental savior. In point of fact, this legislation is an unenvironmental travesty. It represents the most cynical assault to date on the environment. I will respond to a general criticism frequently made. That is, that the deadline for the opening of a permanent repository in 1998 as contemplated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, enacted in 1982, has been breached. There is no permanent repository that will be opened for any time within the foreseeable future, in my judgment. The reason is that politics, not science, has been involved in this process, including proponents of nuclear power and, more specifically, the nuclear industry itself, and its advocates who appear on the floor. Let me briefly, as I have on many occasions over the past 12 years of my Senate tenure, give a little bit of history. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted by the Congress. It sought to search the entire country for three sites to be studied. Those would be sent to the President of the United States, and the President himself would select one of those sites as the repository location. It was contemplated there would be regional equity in balance, and indeed, some of the promising geologic formations in upper New England, the formations of granite, would be examined. We would look at the salt dome locations in the southeastern part of our States, and, yes, the geology of Nevada would be considered, as well, what was referred to as welded tuff. That was a fair and balanced approach. Let science look throughout the country for the best sites. Those sites would be recommended. That did not occur. It did not occur because politics, not science, dictated the conclusion. No sooner had the act been signed into law in January of 1983 by then-President Reagan than the Department of Energy made a unilateral decision it would not look at the granite formations because the people in that part of the country would strongly resist the location of a permanent repository in their State. Is that science? Of course not. It was politics. Then in the 1984 Presidential campaign, President Reagan assured those in the Southeast that the salt dome formations would not be considered. Was that science? Of course not. It was politics. Then finally in 1987, legislation, which is infamously known in my State as the ``Screw Nevada'' bill, the whole concept of the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act to search the country and truly try to come up with the right science and the right location, all of that was cast into the ash bin because politics, not science, dictated only one site would be studied. When I hear the lamentations about the delays and all the money that has been spent, it is politics that has caused that, and politics that interfered with the science of the process. Today we have the most recent cynical political attempt to manipulate the process. In that 1982 legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency was selected as the agency to establish health and safety standards. Who better than the Environmental Protection Agency? For more than a decade, that was not questioned. Then in 1992, there was, in the Energy Act of that year, an attempt to inject another aspect of the equation. The National Academy of Sciences was asked to review the process and come up with a range of recommendations. Make no mistake, the distinguished predecessor chairman to the distinguished Senator from Alaska has been debating as a great advocate of nuclear power and was advocating a position sought for the nuclear power industry. It was his hope and expectation that the National Academy of Sciences would somehow cast an aspersion and question the credibility of the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulations when they were issued. We have the regulations now. Let me describe them briefly. This chart expresses the recommendations or the regulations proposed by the EPA in terms of the millirems of radioactive exposure per year per person. That is one of the standards involved. The EPA has proposed a standard of millirems. That is 15 millirems and is the only reason we are on floor today debating the veto override of the President. That is the EPA's proposed standard. Now what does National Academy of Sciences say the appropriate standard should be? Remember, they expressed that in a range. NAS refers to the National Academy of Science. They are saying the range should be between 2 and 20 millirems; 15, by any standard, is in that mid-range. S. 1287 in its original iteration--not the bill before the Senate, but in the original iteration--proposed a standard that was nearly twice the rate of exposure per person per year, a 30 millirem standard. That is what the nuclear industry desires, the 30 millirem standard. The NRC has come up with a standard of 25 millirems. WIPP, a waste isolation facility in the State of New Mexico which currently houses transuranic nuclear waste, the standard set by EPA not objected to, 15 millirem. Why the difference? Why are we debating this? Because the nuclear power industry does not want a 15 millirem standard; they prefer a 30 millirem standard. The legislation ultimately submitted by the President interferes with the Environmental Protection Agency in moving forward with that and seeks to delay the final rule of 15 millirems. My friend from Alaska has pointed out his responsibilities as the chairman of this committee. I understand that. I respect that and I respect him. But let's talk about what we are trying to do. We are trying to jury-rig, to skew this standard so that under every circumstance Yucca Mountain will meet the scientific criteria. The only way they can do that is to move the goalposts, and that is what the Senator from Alaska has indicated is his primary purpose. What he wants is to ``make sure that the measuring,'' referring to radioactivity, ``is under a regulation that allows waste to go to Yucca Mountain.'' That says nothing about safety--safety for millions of Americans, safety for several hundreds of thousands of people who would live within the affected vicinity, the 2 million people who live in Nevada. That is what we are talking about, health and safety. We are not talking about whether nuclear power is good or bad. That debate can be had another day. We are talking about health and safety. That is why many of us have become energized. It is fair to say there are different ways in which these accidents have occurred, but I wish to illustrate the magnitude of the problem. With radioactivity, we are talking about something that is lethal, deadly, not for generations, but thousands of years--not only a few generations, but thousands of generations. We are not talking about a mistake we could make today and correct in the next Congress or the next decade or even in the next century; and we are talking about something that is lethal. Our friends advocating on behalf of this legislation do not like us to point this out, but let's talk a little bit about the history, since history has been mentioned. In the dawn of the nuclear age, between 1945 and 1968, some 23 years, there were a series of accidents involving nuclear reactors and nuclear power. Some six people were killed as a consequence. I am not suggesting the circumstances are identical to what would be involved with the storage of high-level radioactivity, but I point out this is not just an academic discussion. We are talking about things that cause people to die--not get sick and then get well, but die. That is a very final medical judgment: Death. In the Soviet Union, in 1957, a container of nuclear waste exploded and nearly 11,000 people were evacuated. We don't know how many people may have died as a consequence of that. Theirs is a society, unlike our own, that is closed. We don't get as much information as we would like. In 1961, at Idaho Falls, ID, an explosion occurred within a reactor vessel that resulted in the individuals who were at the reactor site being impaled with a spent fuel rod. Two men were killed. To give you some indication of how lethal, how deadly this is, the remains of those two men who were tragically killed in that accident, by virtue of their contact with the spent fuel rod--and that is what we are talking about with the civilian reactor waste--by virtue of their contact, their bodies themselves had become high-level nuclear waste. It is a rather unpleasant thought but it is true. So in making the arrangements the relatives had to make, they were not only talking about selecting something that might be at the local undertaker's home; they had to design a facility that protected against high-level nuclear waste because the victims themselves had become high-level nuclear waste. That is why health and safety is such a critical concern for us. We could go on and on. We had the Three Mile Island tragedy. Fortunately, that situation did not result in any loss of life. Let me comment on Chernobyl for a moment, because, yes, I have referred to this legislation as the ``mobile Chernobyl.'' I do so because it involves some very serious issues. Last week, in the Washington Post--and I will yield in a moment to my colleague from California who has rejoined us on the floor, but let me finish this thought, if I may--the United Nations released an assessment of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown that occurred 14 years ago, saying the worst health consequences for 7.1 million people may be yet to come. Then, in making the contrast my colleague from Nevada and I tried to make on so many occasions, in explaining in Chernobyl, at least 100 times as much radiation was released by this accident as by the two atomic bombs we dropped in World War II on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then this article goes on to say: The number of those likely to develop serious medical conditions because of delayed reactions to radiation exposure will not be known until 2016 at the earliest. Yes, this is about health and safety; and do I get mad? You bet I do, because we are talking about the health and safety, not only of millions of Americans, but 2 million people who live in my own State. Do we want science and not politics to be the way in which these standards are set? The answer is you bet we do. I am greatly offended and outraged the suggestion would be made on the floor of the Senate that we should let politics dictate this health and safety issue because we want to make sure that, whatever the cost, we have to make sure Yucca Mountain qualifies. That was not the concept and spirit of the 1982 legislation, and it should not be the spirit that activates us today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from California be recognized and, upon the completion of her remarks, I might again be recognized to take the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I assure the Senator, I will only speak for 5 minutes because I understand he has a commitment at noon.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a moment?

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the leader's forthrightness in indicating that we have tried to accommodate each other in terms of the time. I recognize that, as the leader, he has a difficult schedule to maintain. This is an issue that for Senator Reid, for me, and for Nevadans is of paramount importance. We think it is important for the country. I appreciate the spirit of the Senator's response. I appreciate the spirit in which the chairman of the Energy Committee has conducted this debate. We disagree, but he, as well, has been courteous and very responsible in the exchange. I thank three members of my staff who have done an extraordinary job: Brock Richter, Brent Heberlee, Jean Neal, and previously Joe Barry; they have worked on this issue for many months, some for the past 12 years. I acknowledge and thank them for their efforts. Again, I thank the leader for his commitment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield to my colleague from Illinois 3 minutes of my time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois because he has encapsulated the essence of this argument. This is not about science. This is about politics, as he reminds us. Because the time is short, I will respond to some of the issues that have been raised. First of all, we have heard many paeans to the nuclear power industry. Whether you are for or against nuclear power is not the issue. I might say, parenthetically, there is nothing preventing any community that wants to establish a nuclear reactor from doing so. That is a matter of community choice. The fact that for 20 years no community has chosen to do so may tell us the concerns people have about their health and safety. We have heard the Kyoto agreement discussed and interim storage. None of those are the issues. We have talked about why Paris apparently has less pollution than the United States because of nuclear power. All of these things have no relevance. Here are the issues--and the only issues. The question is one of health and safety. Who is going to make that determination? Is it going to be the Environmental Protection Agency, which, by law, for 20 years has provided that standard? What this is all about, when striped to the bare bones, is an attempt to circumvent the standard proposed by the EPA of 15 millirems. That is what we are talking about today. My friend from Illinois is so right. They want to put this off until next year, hoping that a new political process, with a new President, might change the results in a measure far more favorable to the nuclear power industry. That is politics. We hear over and over again the deadline of 1998 has been missed. It is true that the deadline for accepting the waste was missed in 1998. And where does the fault lie? It lies right here in the Congress. It is politics. Because the original nuclear waste bill said that we would search all over the entire country and look for the best geology, the best site. That was the science in 1987, when the legislation focused on one site and one site only. That was politics. The geology of that site is immensely complex. We will not know for some years whether or not that is scientifically suitable. We are told about the costs that are incurred by utility ratepayers. Indeed, there have been costs incurred. But for more than a decade this Senator and this administration has said to each utility that incurs costs as a result of not having a 1998 permanent repository open that we will reimburse them for the cost. If in this legislation we said, look, take title and eliminate the potential liability that the reactor utility sites would have and compensate the utilities for any expenses they have incurred because of the delay, this Senator would support that legislation. What is involved here is not compensation or reimbursement or delay; it is to change the basic science. Health and safety is the issue. Let me say to my friend from Alaska, with whom I agree on many other issues, the area depicted by the photo, when he repeatedly made reference to Yucca Mountain, is 25 miles from Yucca Mountain. That is the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about an area that is totally geographically removed. Let me talk about the issue that the nuclear utilities run all of these full-page ads, that rather than 101 sites--we heard today 80 sites--how about a single site? Just have a single site in Nevada. That is a bogus issue, a red herring. So long as each nuclear reactor continues to generate power, there will be a nuclear waste site at that reactor. As those spent fuel rods are removed from the reactor, they are placed in pools about which the senior Senator from North Carolina talked. That has nothing to do with whether Yucca Mountain is established or not established. That is the way these spent fuel rods are first addressed. There will be storage at those sites for years to come if Yucca Mountain were determined tomorrow to be suitable. The proposed site contemplates that, if approved, there will be a 25- to 30-year period of shipments. So the notion that somehow this legislation will establish a single site is a bogus argument. Let me talk about transportation for a moment because that has been treated very lightly, in my judgment, by colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Transportation is a legitimate issue. We are talking about 43 States. We are talking about 51 million Americans who live within a mile or less of these sites. This map shows the highways in red, the rail in blue, going through all of the major cities, particularly in the eastern part of the United States. What about the accidents? The Department of Energy itself says over the lifetime of this disposal process, one could expect 70 to 310 accidents. Each year in America there are 2,000 derailments. Each year there are approximately 200 collisions. We are talking about shipments of a magnitude that we have never seen before: 35,000 to 100,000 shipments over this 25-year period of time. Although these casks have been described as having fallen from the heavens, in point of fact, the casks that the Department of Energy would like to use are much larger than any that have been previously tested. There have been no tests conclusively done with respect thereto. They are an earlier model. What does this all really amount to? It amounts to congressional irresponsibility, to yield to the pressure of a special interest group that wants to change the rules that are designed to protect 270 million Americans. Finally, I would say the answer to the question that the Senator from Alaska propounded--how do you explain, as a Senator, your vote to sustain the President's veto?--that ought to be a proud moment for every Senator. Because every Senator could stand up and say: I resisted the pressures of a special interest lobbying group, the nuclear utilities in America. What I voted for was what was right for the country and that is to protect the health and safety of the American public--270 million of us who rely upon the Environmental Protection Agency standard, a standard that was unchallenged for 20 years that exists with respect to the nuclear repository in New Mexico, the so- called WIPP site, at 15 millirems. Remember, the original version of S. 1287--we tend to forget that is the bill before us, which admittedly has been modified--would have set health and safety standards where the American public--each citizen-- could be exposed to twice the amount of radiation that the EPA has said is safe for us. Is that what we really want in America, to set health and safety standards to accommodate the interests of the special interest groups, the nuclear utilities, or should we not as Senators, Democrats and Republicans, from the Northeast to the Southwest, from Seattle to Tampa, be saying that we ought to support the health and safety standard that protects the American public? We can debate energy policy in America. That is a debate for another day. However, as Americans, how can we provide less safety, less protection than the Environmental Protection Agency? Every Senator on this floor knows, as do I think most Americans who follow the issue, the only reason we would propose to change the standards--not sites, as my friend from Illinois reminds us --is that it is politics, with the hopes that perhaps in November there may be a new administration that is beholden to the nuclear power industry and will make it easier, at the risk of public health and safety, to site nuclear waste somewhere in America. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. In my 12 years in the Senate, I have to say this is the most unfocused debate we have had on this issue. We are not here today to debate whether or not nuclear power is good or bad for the Nation. We are not here today to debate whether interim storage is an appropriate response. We are not here to debate whether or not France has no pollution, as some have suggested, because they have nuclear reactors. I must say, parenthetically, I am not aware that France propels its automotive fleet through nuclear power. But perhaps we can discuss that at some other date. Very simply, what we are here to talk about is a piece of legislation which the President of the United States has courageously vetoed that would alter the health and safety standards for the Nation. That is the issue. Every American--regardless of his or her politics--should be proud of the President's position. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taunted our colleagues who support the position that my colleague from Nevada and I have been advocating, as well as the distinguished Senators from California and New Mexico today, saying: What are you going to tell your constituents when you return home? The answer that every Member can give, with a straight face, in responding to that question is: Look, I voted to uphold the health and safety standards of the Nation. I was not prepared for any industry, even though I might support nuclear power, to reduce the health and safety standards for millions of people in this country. I will not do it for nuclear power. I will not do it for anything else. I will not be beholding to a special interest. I am voting in the best interests of my constituents and the Nation in upholding public health and safety. That is the answer. That is the most powerful response that can be given. May I inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. BRYAN. Twelve seconds. I yield the remainder of my time.