Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me add, if I may, the significance I find in this piece of legislation that we
are offering today. This has for too long a time been characterized strictly as a Nevada issue, and many of my colleagues have,
obviously, focused less time on this than my senior colleague and I, because Nevada is targeted as the interim storage facility in
this piece of legislation. But the point that we have sought to make is that there is a national impact in the transportation of
85,000 metric tons--that is the emphasis, 85,000 metric tons--of nuclear waste in an order of magnitude never before seen.
There have been over the years 2,500 shipments, but we are talking about 17,000, and as the Presiding Officer may recall
from our debate earlier on this, those earlier 2,500 shipments involved a relatively short distance of about 900 miles or less. 

By reason of the proximity of the Nevada test site, as contrasted from the origin of the nuclear waste itself at the reactors, we
are talking about thousands of miles. I think my colleagues will recall that we are talking about rail and highway corridors that
go through 43 States. Forty-three States are involved. So it is not just Nevada. Forty-three States. 

To give you some idea of the size of each cask, although they have not yet been designed, what is contemplated is that a rail
cask would weigh 125 tons and a truck cask would weigh 25 tons. You will recall that, in terms of the level of potential
radioactivity, that is the equivalent of 200 bombs the size of Hiroshima. So many may wonder why we are suggesting that we
do this with respect to high-level nuclear waste shipments. It is because the order of risk is so much greater and the
consequences of failing to provide for it is much, much greater. 

The Presiding Officer represents the great State of Oklahoma. You will note that in Oklahoma, we have at least three different
corridors that would be used. These are all rail corridors that would come through the State of the distinguished Presiding
Officer. What we are simply saying is, `Look, can a Governor have a greater responsibility and obligation to the citizens of the
State that he or she 
represents than to make sure that adequate measures are taken to protect the health and safety of the citizens of that State?' 

Mr. President, as you know, I was honored by the citizens of my own State to have been elected Governor twice. I have
some idea of the responsibilities that a Governor undertakes, and there can be no greater responsibility than a Governor
advocating on behalf of the people he represents to make sure that any actions that are within his or her power are done for
the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the citizens. 

So that is what we are doing. Not only is the Presiding Officer's State involved, we have Arizona, New Mexico, Texas,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas,
Colorado, Utah, California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia--we can go on and on and on--Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, to go on and on. My point is that each of these Governors should have the ability to make sure adequate
safeguards are taken. 

Let me just say, because this is an issue that has occurred out in the West and may not be widely publicized and it came to a
boiling point during the recess, there is a series of shipments which are being received on the west coast from overseas nuclear
reactors. They would come in through the Port of Oakland in California, ultimately to be located at the facility in Idaho.
California's Governor complained vociferously that there had not been adequate notice, not adequate safeguards taken, and so
he has filed, on behalf of the people of California, a lawsuit, or has directed the attorney general to do so, to challenge the
adequacy of some of those provisions. My senior colleague, Senator Reid, pointed out the problems that have occurred in
Europe. So these are not theoretical or hypothetical, these are real-life circumstances, and Governors ought to have the ability
to do that. 

All we are saying is, look, each Governor must be satisfied that before a shipment goes through his or her State that safeguards
are needed to protect the citizens of that State in literally hundreds of thousands of cities that this nuclear waste would go
through. That strikes me as not being unreasonable. 

We talk a lot in this Congress of returning power to the States, not assuming all wisdom resides on the banks of the Potomac.
Indeed, those who work in the Federal bureaucracy are vested with no greater wisdom than those who toil on behalf of a
State government at the State level. I hear that time after time in many different contexts as we debate legislation on the floor. 

There is no greater opportunity that a Member can have than to say, in effect, `I am implementing a policy that provides to
each of the States that which I have philosophically espoused, namely, giving the Governor, as the chief executive officer of
that State, the ability to undertake the necessary protections.' I think that is a reasonable approach. I think it is something that
every Governor would want. It is not partisan. Democratic Governors and Republican Governors alike would certainly want to
be protected in terms of the 17,000 shipments that would pass through their States, through thousands of cities in America,
small communities, and that is not unreasonable. 

And because these routes are identified here, as we are pointing them out--there is no great mystery--so that the State
Governors could be contacted long in advance of any proposed shipment to work out the necessary health and safety
precautions. 

I say to my colleagues that, however they come down on S . 104 , this certainly is a measure that everybody ought to embrace
because this is health and safety and it provides the ultimate protection for a Governor to take care of those persons in his or
her State to the best of that Governor's ability. 

I yield the floor.