Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I reserve to myself such time as I may need at this point. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering the legislation that may well have dramatic consequences for the operations of our securities markets. America's securities markets are the envy of the world. Our markets are the safest, and they enjoy universal investor confidence. American companies have been able to prosper in large part because of their ability to raise capital in our financial markets. We should all be proud of these markets, yet, at the same time, we must be extremely careful not to jeopardize this investor confidence. Even though our securities markets are the world's safest, we still have our share of bad apples. There will always be people who feel it is necessary to cut corners, or that they can get away with financial wrongdoing. We have not seen the last of the Keatings, the Boeskys, the Milkens, the Icahns of the 1980's, who penalize the American public by their commitment to greed and avarice, and with horrendous cost to the investors, to the public, and to public institutions as a result of their actions. The legislation we are considering today will make it more difficult, in my judgment, to bring legitimate fraud cases and will make it more difficult to recover stolen assets. That having been said, Mr. President, let me be clear that the legislation before us today, although it purports to [[Page S 17944]] deal with the issue of frivolous lawsuits, is in point of fact a smokescreen, if you will, the Trojan horse, as I have characterized it, to really get at the heart and substance of this legislation, which is to insulate and immunize perpetrators of fraud from legitimate investor recovery. If this legislation were about frivolous lawsuits, sign me up; count me as being on board. There are some provisions that enjoy universal support. They are incorporated in this bill. Let me mention a couple of them. There are included in the provisions a requirement that plaintiffs certify individually in each of these securities actions that the actions are brought in good faith, that they are not acting in a frivolous fashion, that, indeed, they are not part of the referral process, all of which I think make a lot of sense and deal with some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. There are further provisions that prohibit the payment of referral fees to brokers. That, in my judgment, is legitimate and is designed specifically to deal with the issue of potential frivolous lawsuits. The concern is that we should not give stockbrokers, or anyone else, incentives for referral of potential securities fraud cases, and, indeed, these actions ought to be prohibited and the legislation does that. The legislation also deals with the issue of banning bonus payments to class plaintiffs, and I think this, too, deals with the issue of frivolous lawsuits. It requires the lawyer who has an interest in securities, who brings the action, to have his actions reviewed for potential conflict of interest. That, I think, is highly appropriate, and it calls for improved settlement notice to class members in terms of the proposed terms of the settlement. It contains provisions that limit attorneys fees. In the original version of this bill, as it passed the Senate, it dealt with the sanction provisions of rule 11, saying that those persons, whether they be attorneys on behalf of plaintiffs or defendants, who take frivolous actions, can, indeed, have the full sanction of the law brought against them. And this was done in an even and fair-minded way. That, Mr. President, in my judgment, deals with the bona fide, legitimate question of frivolous lawsuits. If that is what this legislation was all about, we would not be having this debate on the floor today. I concur and I suspect that all of my colleagues want to work to eliminate some of the abuses that have occurred in the system. But, Mr. President, that requires a laser-like action to specifically craft legislation that deals with some of the practices that have been abused. The referral fees to brokers, the bonus payments, the potential conflicts of interest, the improved notice to class members of the terms of a settlement, the limitation of attorney fees and the strengthened sanction provisions of rule 11. That, my friends, is what frivolous lawsuit legislation reform ought to be about. But this goes so much further and, in my judgment, is more about protecting misconduct and fraud than it is about frivolous lawsuits. Let me point out first, for those who may not be familiar with what is involved in bringing a securities action, let me make a disclosure at the outset I have neither been plaintiff, defendant, nor as a lawyer have I represented anyone in a securities action. But this is what is involved in bringing a securities fraud case. First, a person must prove that he or she actually purchased the securities. The person must prove that the fraud, the manipulation or deception was in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. The person must prove that a defendant acted with scienter, that is, an intent to deceive or a reckless disregard for the truth or the falsity of the statement. It needs to be emphasized that negligence, simple ordinary negligence, is not the kind of misconduct that is a predicate for a securities action. So anyone who makes a statement inadvertently or is involved in negligent action does not come within the purview of the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934. A person must prove a defendant's misstatement or nondisclosure was material, not just incidental, but material. A person must prove that he or she reasonably relied on the defendant's misstatement. A person must prove how he or she was damaged. And, finally, a person must prove a defendant's conduct caused the damages. Now, those are reasonably difficult things to prove. And they ought to be. They ought to be. I do not have any quarrel with that. These actions ought not to be taken lightly. Our colleagues point out that there is a great expense involved in defending class actions. I acknowledge that. But that is the burden of proof that plaintiffs must submit themselves to under the current law. And it is a rather substantial burden of proof, Mr. President. As I have indicated, with respect to frivolous actions this Senator has no sympathy, and the full provisions of rule 11 under the Federal rules, as strengthened by the version passed by the Senate before this bill went into conference, appropriately deals in a balanced fashion when there has in fact been a finding that a lawsuit has been filed frivolously by a plaintiff or actions by defendants' attorneys are frivolous. Let me talk for a moment about what is happening in the market. And I would invite my colleagues' attention to a recent Wall Street Journal article. We are not just talking about some remote contingent fraud that may occur in the marketplace. We are dealing with the reality in which, as the Wall Street Journal fairly recently pointed out in a May article earlier this year, in a front page story, the title of which is ``How Career Swindlers Run Rings Around SEC and Prosecutors,'' and the subhead of the story ``White-Collar Crooks Serve Little Jail Time, Leave Billions in Fines Unpaid, The Bad Guys Are Winning.'' Mr. President, this does not appear in the American Trial Lawyers Association Journal. This appears in one of the icons of the business publications in America, the Wall Street Journal. In effect, there is more investor fraud, not less. And even with the resources available at the SEC, this article concludes that the bad guys, in fact, are winning. I offer this as a somber and hopefully sobering assessment that there is massive fraud out there and that we have not seen the last of the Ivan Boeskys and the Mike Milkens or the Charles Keatings. Those are not just some part of a historic record that no longer concerns us in America. There are folks out there every day who, through whatever artifice and device, continue to perpetrate investor fraud. And that ought to suggest to us in this deliberative body that we ought to proceed with some caution as we approach securities litigation reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article of Friday, May 12, 1995, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN. Let me just also invite my colleagues' attention, in a similar vain--here is a similar business publication called Crain's New York Business, the date of which is December 4th through the 10th, 1995. It cannot be much more contemporary than that. That is this very week. And its headline indicates ``New Scams for a new generation.'' The subhead is, ``Driven by high-tech rip-offs, financial fraud is soaring.'' That, Mr. President, is a publication of this very week, ``financial fraud is soaring.'' And I again ask unanimous consent that this publication be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to use a portion of the time of the senior Senator from Minnesota as he will not be on the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator for his statement and for his insight.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I have no objection.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a period of time not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, those of us in public life are accustomed to being surprised as the morning newspaper is delivered to us each day to find extraordinary examples of bureaucratic abuse, waste, and misuse of the taxpayers' dollars. I must say, this morning the level of my outrage at this most recent abuse, which I will comment on in just a moment, has been unsurpassed in my recent memory. As the Wall Street Journal reports this morning, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Mrs. O'Leary, has [[Page S 16852]] hired an investigative service at taxpayers' expense in the amount of $43,500. This is not a clipping service. All of us are familiar with clipping services. I think they have a legitimate purpose in ascertaining what types of information may be being printed, broadcast, as the case may be, about the functions of an agency. But this is an image-enhancing effort in which the Secretary has engaged, again at taxpayers' expense, to the amount of $43,500, an investigative service. This outfit is known as ``Carma International.'' They were charged with not only clipping stories but doing some investigative reporting, both as to the reporters themselves and the stories. I think, if I might just share a paragraph or two very briefly with my colleagues, the flavor of this story will be very clear. From April through August, the service, Washington-based Carma International, tracked more than two dozen individual reporters and hundreds of newspapers, magazines and newscasts. It also pored over thousands of stories, giving each one a numerical ranking based upon how favorable or unfavorable it was. It then calculated scores for how favorably or unfavorably the DOE fared on various issues, from nuclear waste to Mrs. O'Leary's own reputation. And it scrutinized sources quoted in those stories. Then, Mr. President, it went on to compile a ``Top 25'' list of ``Unfavorable Sources.'' I must say, in a previous generation, this has a striking similarity in terms of the mentality involved of the Nixon ``Enemies List.'' This is not an attempt to gather information or ascertain what has been reported. This is a subjective analysis of ``look how the reporters from a particular news service or news organization are treating us.'' For this kind of money to be expended at taxpayers' expense is simply outrageous. I cannot conceive of a rationale or a justification to spend this kind of money. So I am going to ask in a moment this article be printed in the Record, but also indicate it is my intention to call upon the Secretary to reimburse the American taxpayers at her own expense for what I believe to be a truly outrageous expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, without any public use or justification at all, primarily driven, I suspect, by the ego of the individual involved and by a paranoia that seems rampant at some levels in the agency. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article from the Wall Street Journal of this morning be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. If there is no Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, 5 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. I agree.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the energy and water conference report that was just adopted earlier this evening is correct when it concludes that the Nation's nuclear waste policy with respect to permanent disposal is deeply flawed. It is a program that has cost some $5 billion, and the solution to the nuclear waste issue in America is no closer to resolution today than it was in 1982. The reason for that, Mr. President, is that politics and not science has been a driving force. The second reason is because of unrealistic deadlines that have been constantly mandated on the program that have been counterproductive. Based upon some of the comments made by a number of my colleagues this evening, the Nation is about ready to commit another serious error in nuclear waste policy as it relates to interim or short-term storage or, as it has been characterized by some, a monitored retrieval storage system. Mr. President, we have been to that show before. In the early 1980's the advocates of nuclear power, in urging upon the Congress the adoption of an AFR program, Away From Reactor Program, indicated that unless action was taken immediately, a number of nuclear reactors around the country would be forced to close down because of the nuclear waste problem and the Nation would face an energy crisis. The Congress did not respond to the request made by the nuclear power industry, and no nuclear reactor was closed as a consequence. In the debate that is about to ensue on the interim storage issue, we are about ready to fall into that similar trap that was foisted upon us by Congress in 1987 in urging unrealistic deadlines and that science is to take a second place to the politics of nuclear waste. I think it may be helpful, Mr. President, to respond and to go into a little of the history of the program. In 1982, the Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I think the Congress attempted to develop a sensible policy. Its underlying premise is that we should search the entire country looking at various types of repositories. We would look in the New England States of America for granite, look in the Southeast for salt domes. We would look in parts of the West for a volcanic material called tuff. Those three sites would be evaluated and studied--``characterized'' is the technical terminology that is used. And those three sites would be forwarded to the President of the United States, and the President would make a decision. The law also contemplated that there would be regional bounds, or equity; that is, no part of the country would bear the entire burden of the Nation's nuclear waste disposal. Mr. President, no sooner had that policy been signed into law by President Reagan in the early part of 1983, than immediately politics became a driving force. In the campaign year that ensued, candidates for the Presidency asserted that, if elected--the promise was made to constituents of particular States that those States would be off limits in terms of being considered for a nuclear waste repository. Indeed, the Department of Energy itself was immersed in the politics of nuclear waste and in an internal memorandum concluded that New England with granite as a possible repository site would be eliminated because the politics--the politics, not the science, Mr. President-- would be too difficult. So one particular region of the country would be written off. Ultimately it was decided that a repository should not attempt to be sited east of the Mississippi River, not because of the science, not because of the geology, but because of the politics. So I repeat, Mr. President, this is a program that has been driven not by science, but by politics and with the imposition of totally unrealistic time lines. That is not just the conclusion of the Senator from Nevada. That is the conclusion of virtually every independent comment or observation. The technical review committee, the General Accounting Office, and others have all lamented that politics and unrealistic deadlines have caused the problem. Mr. President, fast forward to 1987, 5 years after the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In a conference report done in the still of evening, without an opportunity to debate the merits of this amendment, an addition was inserted into the conference report which indicated that rather than three sites being studied or characterized, only one site would be studied and that site would be Yucca Mountain in Nevada. I know of no scientist worthy of that name who would assert as a matter of public policy and good science that that was a sensible judgment. And yet the politics dictated that the State of Nevada, a small State with a small congressional representation, should be targeted out as the site and the only site to be characterized. This was not done in the context of public policy debate. It was not done where the representatives of Nevada had an opportunity to debate the merits or demerits. This was done surreptitiously in a conference report, and as the Members of the Chamber fully understand, that means that it is impossible to debate an amendment to remove that provision up or down. I wish I could say that that is the only tragic experience that the State of Nevada has had with the politics of nuclear waste. In 1992, the issue before the Congress was in an energy bill. In neither the House nor the Senate was debate or consideration given, as that piece of legislation was processed, to a reduction of health and safety standards that would apply only at Yucca Mountain. Once again, Mr. President, the State of Nevada was victimized by having a provision inserted into the energy bill that had not been debated, had not been considered by the Members of either House, and was added to the conference report. Once again, the State was disadvantaged in terms of raising legitimate public health and safety issues because the conference report is up or down, no opportunity to amend. The 1987 amendments are known ignominiously in Nevada as the ``screw Nevada'' plan. The 1992 amendments are ``screw Nevada II,'' and I am afraid that we are about to see unfold in this Congress what might be ``screw Nevada III.'' Mr. President, the State of Nevada continually seems to be focused with a nuclear bull's-eye on either Yucca Mountain or the Nevada test site. As in 1981 when the Away From Reactor Program was debated, again we hear the hysteria beginning to mount that unless we provide for interim storage, nuclear reactors will close and, indeed, regions of our country may be left without power. Nonsense. No nuclear reactor closed in 1981 as a result of the failure to adopt the AFR program. And no nuclear reactors are about ready to close today because of the failure to provide for an interim storage. There are two provisions, Mr. President, that currently exist in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that I apprehend are in danger. One is a matter of fairness. One simply states that if a State is being characterized, studied, evaluated for the permanent high-level nuclear waste repository, it may not be designated as an interim storage, an MRS, monitor retrieval storage. Nuclear waste, whatever one feels about the propriety or the soundness of pursuing nuclear power, ought not to be the burden of a single State. And the Congress in 1992, to effect some semblance of fairness, made that point that if you are being considered for the permanent repository, you ought not to have to be considered for the interim storage. Recognizing another political fact of life, a reality, the Congress further concluded that an interim storage ought not to be selected until after the permanent site is selected because of the concern that everybody in this Chamber fully understands, that once an interim site is chosen, it will de facto--de facto--become the permanent site. That is the state of the record. What is involved with all of this hysteria about the need to have immediately an interim storage? It is the hysteria and propaganda of a nuclear power industry. Current law authorizes on-site storage, called dry-cast storage, and a number of responsible nuclear utilities have availed themselves of it. Not far from the Nation's Capital, I was privileged to visit such a nuclear reactor site in Calvert Cliffs where on-site dry-cast storage currently exists. It results in no change in the law and is available as a result of it having been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This provides a window of opportunity of approximately 100 years for us to deal responsibly and sensibly with the issue of nuclear waste and not driven by the immediacy of the politics nor of the unrealistic deadlines that are being thrust upon us. I know most Members of the Chamber would assume Nevada is the only one with a dog in this fight. That is simply not the case. Mr. President, there are 43 States that will be affected by the transfer of nuclear waste across the country. Some of the largest cities in the country, some of the most populous areas will be affected by some 16,000 shipments that literally will move from every point on the compass. Not only do we apprehend the possibility of an accident, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of derailments each year in which a shipment of high-level nuclear waste could be the subject of an accident, more recently in Hyder, AZ, as we tragically found out the possibility of an act of terrorism. I cannot think of a more inviting target: a train load of high-level nuclear waste en route to a major metropolitan area to be targeted for an act of terrorism. As we have learned in the Hyder, AZ, incident, it took but a matter of minutes and did not require much sophistication to effect that tragedy. Mr. President, in this Congress, we have heard a lot about State's rights. Most of the debates in the major pieces of legislation that we have had have constantly emphasized the importance of returning to the States, to abandon the notion that the Federal Government has preeminent wisdom on major public policy issues, to allow the States to make decisions for themselves. It is for that reason I find it inconsistent with that philosophy that a number of my colleagues in the Chamber are suggesting that the Federal Government must preempt local government decisions and somehow formulate this policy of having an interim storage site chosen by this Congress and the site to be chosen is Nevada. That makes no sense to me, Mr. President, and I see no reason why that need be done. I might also point out to my colleagues that there is a certain hypocrisy. A number of my colleagues have gotten up and have expressed their strong support and commitment for nuclear power. Many apprehend that the industry, which is on its death bed in terms of its economic vitality and its prospects in the financial markets of the world, they believe passionately that locating an interim-storage site will regenerate interest in terms of the financial markets in the country in nuclear power. That is fine if they believe that. We have heard impassioned pleas by the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana. Let me just say to my colleagues that those of you who believe that a nuclear power future is the future that you envision or contemplate for America, and if you think that that is the kind of public policy we need to adopt, volunteer your own State. Volunteer your own State. The current law permits a State to step forward and say, ``Look, we will voluntarily accept an interim site,'' and if that is what you believe and you are honest with your convictions and consistent with your convictions and believe it is in the national interest, then go ahead and volunteer your own State. What I take strong exception to and bitterly resent is the notion that somehow only Nevada can be the solution for the interim and the permanent nuclear waste problem in America. I do so, Mr. President, because Nevada has not chosen to have a nuclear power future. We have no nuclear reactors in Nevada. We do not want nuclear reactors in Nevada. We had no part of the decision made by many States to locate nuclear reactors in their own States and their own communities, and Nevada ought not to be called upon to bear the burden of the Nation's high-level nuclear waste when it neither sought such a policy nor participated in the decision of other States to do so. So, end this hypocrisy for those of my colleagues who want nuclear power to continue as a source of energy for America. Step forward and do the responsible thing if that is what you believe: Volunteer your own State. You can do so, but leave my State out of that equation, because we did not buy into the nuclear bargain that you did. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues an issue of great importance to Nevada, but should be of concern to those from other States as well. Mr. President, for 13 years, since 1982, Nevada has been the prime target of the nuclear power industry for the disposal of its high level commercial nuclear waste. In spite of the fact that Nevada has no nuclear reactors, commercial or otherwise, and never benefited from nuclear power, Nevada has been identified by the nuclear power special interest lobby as its chosen site for the disposal of one of the most poisonous, dangerous substances known to mankind. Since 1987, as the result of a backroom deal reached during the deliberations of a conference committee, Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Nevada, has been the sole site being studied by the Federal Government for a high-level nuclear waste dump. As many of my colleagues are aware, the repository program has been a dismal failure. Despite the expenditure of nearly $5 billion, a repository is no closer to being built today than it was in 1982, when the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed by Congress. Faced with the failure of the permanent repository program, and frustrated by the Federal Government's obvious inability to accept nuclear waste from commercial reactors anytime near the originally planned 1998 deadline, the nuclear power industry and its advocates decided to initiate another, even more dangerous, assault on Nevada. Raising the specter of widespread shutdowns of nuclear power reactors across the Nation, and demanding adherence to the obviously impossible 1998 deadline, the nuclear power industry now demands that the Federal Government immediately build so-called interim storage facilities at the Nevada test site. This new attack on the health and safety of Nevadans is coming at us from all angles. Numerous bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to target Nevada for interim storage--all written by the nuclear power industry, and all fiercely opposed by Nevada's Governor and congressional delegation, and the vast majority of Nevadans. At the same time, we face the prospect of another back room deal on a conference report singling Nevada out for a dump it wants no part of. In spite of the fact that neither the House or Senate energy and water appropriations bills would allow interim storage to be constructed in Nevada, by all indications, the conference report may target Nevada as the sole site for interim storage. Mr. President, nothing could be less fair to the citizens of my State and I, and the rest of the Nevada congressional delegation, will do everything possible to see that this provision does not pass. Mr. President, as you may expect, we in Nevada fear that should a nuclear waste dump of any type ever be built in our State, the health and safety of Nevadans will be severely threatened. With 16,000 shipments of highly toxic waste arriving from across the Nation, the potential for a catastrophic accident near Las Vegas, a community of 1 million residents, is enormous. Mr. President, while Nevada faces the greatest risk, and is at the most peril should the nuclear power industry get its way with Congress, every Senator should take a careful look at exactly what is being proposed. As citizens across the Nation are slowly beginning to realize, the nuclear power industry is proposing to ship, at the earliest date possible, an unprecedented volume of shipments of extremely poisonous, highly toxic high level nuclear waste--over 16,000 shipments across 43 States, by both rail and truck. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues' attention to the proposed shipment routes. Each Senator will note that his or her State may be a candidate for this massive shipment with all the risks that are here by way of accident or other unforeseen consequence. Even though the plan sadly targets Nevada out here as the ultimate repository, it will pass through the States of most of my colleagues. I emphasize that they too and their constituents are at risk, as are my constituents. Mr. President, my colleagues should look closely at this map, because this map shows the likely routes for the transportation of high-level waste in the very near future. As I pointed out a moment ago, nearly every State would be effected. The nuclear power industry, of course, is quick to claim that we have nothing to worry about, that nuclear waste transport is perfectly safe. Mr. President, I doubt many of my constituents, or those of other Members, would put much faith in the nuclear power industry's assertions. Quite simply, accidents do happen. While only a relative few make the national news, the United States has nearly 1,500 rail derailments a year. Heavy truck accidents occur approximately six times for each million miles traveled which, if applied to the thousands of truck shipments under the nuclear power industry's plan, would result in at least 15 truck accidents involving nuclear waste each and every year. The events of the past week raise even more frightening possibilities. In addition to the potential for accidents, nuclear waste shipments could become prime targets for acts of sabotage or terrorism. Monday's sabotage of the Sunset Limited near Hyder, AZ, is a stark reminder of the dangers we face from criminals and terrorists every day. In a matter of minutes, those responsible for the Sunset Limited wreck created a derailment which took the life of one passenger, and injured numerous others. From the reports that I have read, Mr. President, that sabotage took approximately 10 minutes to effect. In an ironic twist, this week's act of sabotage appears to be a copycat of the August, 1939 derailment near Harney, NV, that killed 24 passengers. The simple fact is that no one, not the nuclear power industry, not the Department of Energy, and not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, no one can guarantee the safety of the transportation of nuclear waste. Sound public policy dictates a cautious approach to the transport of such hazardous materials. They should only be moved if absolutely necessary. This is simply not the case with nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is currently stored on-site, at the 109 nuclear power reactors in the United States--80 percent of them east of the Mississippi River. These sites, of necessity, will remain storage facilities for nuclear materials at least as long as the reactor continues to operate--several decades, if not longer. Technology Mr. President, currently exists--dry cask storage--that is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and available for utilities to purchase if they need additional storage. Numerous utilities have taken advantage of this technology, and have moved to dry cask storage. Outside of the local political problems many reactors face when they try to increase storage, there is simply no reason any utility needing additional storage could not do the same.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank again the Chair for his courtesy. Mr. President, the point I would seek to make this afternoon is this is not just a Nevada issue. Look at the map. Forty-three States are affected by these proposed nuclear waste shipment proposals. And each State bears a risk of an accident or an act of sabotage, an act of terrorism with all of the frightening consequences that brings to bear on those States and the constituents of those States being represented here in the U.S. Senate. The plans being advanced by the nuclear power industry threaten the health and safety of citizens across the Nation, for no good reason. The crisis mentality generated by nuclear power industry propaganda is nothing new. In the early 1980's, advocates for the nuclear power industry argued on the Senate floor, and elsewhere, that unless some away-from-reactor plan called AFR storage was provided by the Federal Government soon, reactors across the Nation would shut down, creating an electricity crisis for millions of Americans. Of course, no reactors have ever shut down for lack of storage, and there is no crisis. The same is true today. Mr. President, the reality is that the nuclear power industry is a dying industry. No new reactors have been ordered for over a decade, not because of lack of storage, but because nuclear power is simply not competitive in the marketplace. In an ill-founded and irresponsible attempt to jump-start a dying industry, nuclear utilities have advanced a proposal that places the population of 43 States at risk, all for the benefit of the bottom line of the commercial nuclear power industry. I urge my colleagues to reject the nuclear power industry's interim storage proposal. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to move to morning business for the purpose of giving a statement of about 7 or 8 minutes. I would ask unanimous consent that I might speak as in morning business for a period not to exceed 8 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. Again, I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to inform the Senate that my distinguished colleague, Senator Reid, was called away suddenly due to the death of a lifetime friend of his family. He was unable to be present because of his attendance at funeral services in Nevada. Had he been present today, he would have voted for cloture on the matter presently before the Senate.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I wanted to alert my colleagues it will be my intention later on today when the floor opens up to offer an amendment with Senator Burns to provide transitional funding----

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair and my friend from North Dakota for his courtesy. As I indicated, Mr. President, it will be my intention to offer, with the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Burns, an amendment later on today to provide transitional funding for the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration. This funding would permit an orderly transition into a new public/ private-sector entity. This amendment enjoys the support of a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, including, among many others, Senators McConnell, Hollings, Murkowski, Inouye, Thurmond, and Daschle. I might also note, Mr. President, that the National Governors' Association at their recent annual meeting endorsed the concept embodied in this proposed amendment. Mr. President, none of us is unmindful of the fact that the current budget pressures demand some extraordinary responses. So the purpose of this amendment is simply to provide some transitional funding until this public-private partnership can be organized. As part of this effort, the Congress, the administration, and the travel and tourism organization that are needed best to promote the travel industry are going to need some time to put this into effect. To cut off funding cold turkey, as is contemplated in the present form of this bill, would be the equivalent of unilateral disarmament. All of our competitors spend considerably more than we do on their national tourism offices. In fact, the United States ranks 23d, spending just $16 million while countries like Greece, Mexico, and Spain, spend more than $100 million each year. In fact, putting this in some context, Mr. President, we rank behind such powerhouses as Tunisia and Malaysia in terms of the amount of money we are spending. Unfortunately, these spending figures are having a dramatic impact on our share of the world's tourism market. In 1993, the United States enjoyed almost 19 percent of the world's tourism receipts. This has declined to 15.6 percent this year, and is expected to shrink to 13.8 percent by the end of the decade. The chart that I have prepared will indicate that rather dramatic decline. In 1993, 18.7 percent; 1994, 17.9 percent; 1995, estimated this year, 15.6 percent; and by the end of the century, 13.8 percent. Now, this is more than just a statistical observation. It has real impact. The loss in the U.S. share of the world's tourism market can be translated into a significant impact on our trade deficit and on employment. If we were able to keep our world tourism share from shrinking, we would improve our trade balance--that is a plus, Mr. President--by $28 billion and increase employment by 370,000 people by the year 2000. Those are significant industries. Very few industries can shape our economy to this extent. Travel and tourism is already the second largest employer in our Nation after health care. It employs either directly or indirectly 13 million Americans. Now, this indicates the trade surplus balance, something that is always of concern to us. We are running, in terms of our international trading accounts, a deficit. This clearly indicates that tourism--international tourism; we are not talking about domestic tourism; this is international tourism--can be a substantial, positive, contributing factor. The estimate this year is $18.1 billion, that is, in effect, more people coming to the United States from abroad, spending money in your State, Mr. President, and others who are on the floor and my own as opposed to Americans traveling abroad and spending money in foreign countries--$18.1 billion to the good as we say. The opportunity we have as a nation is that international travel and tourism is growing rapidly. By the year 2000 more than 661 million people will be traveling throughout the world. That is roughly twice as many people as traveled in 1985. What we need to do is to capture our share of this tourism market. We need to put the muscle of the public and private sector together in a public/private-sector relationship to make sure we advance this market, fully exploit this market to make sure that we get our fair share of the international travel dollar. And to do this we need to develop a new strategy, jointly with the private sector, to energize our international tourism efforts. The amendment which we will be offering later today would provide $12 million in funding for USTTA, for the transition into this new public/ private-sector entity. What this entity will look like is being formulated as we [[Page S 14585]] speak. It should be available for scrutiny at the upcoming White House Conference on Travel and Tourism. Australia and Canada have recently created such public/private-sector partnerships. These new organizations are each spending approximately $100 million this year and have developed creative and aggressive programs in promoting national tourism on behalf of their respective countries. I do not come here to defend our current tourism effort. It is in need of a major overhaul. But terminating this program cold turkey is not the appropriate step to take. We must make a transition into a new market entity. This transition is important for all of us. It gives us time to begin implementing the recommendations that will emerge from the White House conference on tourism, time to help kick off the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta, in time to make a transition into a new public/private-sector partnership. Later on, Mr. President, I will urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which enjoys wide bipartisan support. And I note the work of my distinguished colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, who is a prime cosponsor with me. Mr. President, I do not know if anyone else needs to speak, but I reserve the remainder of the time and yield the floor. Noting no other Senator on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN. I think my statement would take perhaps 7 or 8 minutes, if there is a parliamentary concern. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise to express deep concerns regarding an example of financial mismanagement and waste within the intelligence community. I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 Intelligence Authorization bill that has been accepted by the full Intelligence Committee and by the Senate. This amendment is intended to put a stop to the rampant mismanagement of funding at the National Reconnaissance Office. Mr. President, there is a disturbing sense of deja vu as I stand here on the floor today. One year ago, I was shocked to learn that the National Reconnaissance Office was constructing a massive headquarters facility out near Dulles Airport in Virginia. Not only did this facility include floor space far in excess of what was necessary, but the record showed a disturbing lack of candor in informing the congressional oversight committees regarding the scope and expense of this project. Last week, the public was informed of another example of gross financial mismanagement by the NRO. As the papers reported, the NRO has accumulated more than $1.5 billion in unspent appropriations. In this time of severe budgetary constraints, when we are cutting Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, student loan assistance, it is inexcusable that an agency can be hoarding well over a billion dollars. My amendment includes a number of provisions to ensure this situation is resolved and does not occur again. First, my amendment directs that the NRO may not carry over more than 1 month in funds into a subsequent fiscal year. Second, my amendment requires the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency inspectors general to undertake a comprehensive NRO financial management review. This review will not only cover the issue of carry-forward funding, but will also examine the overall effectiveness of policies and internal controls over the NRO budget. The amendment also requires that the IG report is unclassified, and can be released to the public. Finally, my amendment directs the President to report to the Intelligence Committees early next year on a proposal to subject the budget of the intelligence community to greater executive branch oversight. The report must include procedures to allow the Office of Management and Budget to have full review of the NRO budget. I recently received a call from Director of Central Intelligence Dr. John Deutch on this issue. I was pleased by Dr. Deutch's comments in which he agreed that stronger financial controls over the NRO are necessary. Dr. Deutch also stated that he was not aware of the size of this carry-forward account either in his previous position as Deputy Secretary of Defense, or in his current position. It is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary. But these latest revelations do great damage to the public's trust, and to the credibility of the NRO and the Intelligence Community as a whole. The NRO seems to be an agency that is out of control, with no intention of correcting its ways. Hopefully, opening the NRO budget to increased scrutiny will help restore confidence in the ability of the NRO to accomplish its important mission. Thank you, and I yield the floor. [[Page S 14787]] amendment no. 2883 (Purpose: To enhance the capabilities of certain intelligence stations, and to extend the Central Intelligence Agency Voluntary Separation Pay Act) On page 11, strike lines 17 through 21 and insert the following:

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to report the floor manager has indicated that this amendment will be accepted. I want to acknowledge the support of the distinguished Senator from Montana, who has been most helpful in working through this amendment. I yield the floor, if I may, to him. I made remarks earlier this morning. This deals with the USTTA. The distinguished floor managers have accommodated that. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I acknowledge publicly my appreciation for the response of the Senator from Texas. I ask unanimous consent the junior Senator from California, Senator Boxer, be listed as a cosponsor.