Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the last several years, in fact, during the entire time I have been in Congress, there has been
an explosion of comment about returning matters to the States. This has been evidenced in a number of pieces of legislation we
passed, including those in the last Congress dealing with immigration reform and especially that dealing with welfare reform. 

Matters have been returned to the States. Why? Because there have been feelings of many that there was an accumulation of
power here in Washington that had taken away from the basic foundation of our constitutional form of Government. Too much
power was being developed and too much power actually existed in Washington, DC, in the Federal level of Government. 

Mr. President, as a result of that, we, most everybody in Congress, have felt that we needed to return things to the States and
have the chief executive of that State have the say of what goes on within the confines of that State. 

That is what this amendment deals with. If you are going to ship the most poisonous substance known to man across State
lines, then, of course, you should get permission of the Governor. 

Many also in the majority have proclaimed that the 105th Congress, above all other Congresses, be a States rights Congress,
the mantra of those avowed supporters of States rights, grounded in the notion that Congress has no right to impose costly and
burdensome laws, rules and regulations on the States. In fact, I joined with the assistant leader of the majority, Don Nickles,
in sponsoring an amendment to the regulation reform bill that came from the House last Congress, the Nickles-Reid
amendment. That passed. In effect, what that amendment said is that Federal agencies are promulgating too many regulations
without Congress having any authority or say as to what regulations they have promulgated. 
What the Nickles-Reid amendment said is that if there is a regulation promulgated that has a certain financial impact, then it
does not go into effect for 60 days. If it has less than a $100 million economic impact, it goes into effect immediately, but we
have 60 days to review it. That was only one example of how we felt that Congress should have more say in returning power
to the people. 

Mr. President, the mantra of the States rights Congress is grounded in the notion that Congress has no right to impose these
costly rules, laws and regulations on States. I respect this point of view, and that is the reason I joined with my friend, the
senior Senator from Oklahoma, in sponsoring this legislation that passed without a single dissenting vote. It did not have a
dissenting vote when we offered the amendment here; there was not a single dissenting vote when it came back from the
House in conference. 

That said, it is ironic that some who consider themselves stalwart supporters of States rights are going to support this
underlying legislation. If there is ever a bill that abrogated abuse of States rights in a more terrible manner than the underlying
legislation, I do not know what that would be. It seems that when it comes to issues involving the most basic of States rights,
the right to be free of living with deadly nuclear waste, this Congress does not care. We, Mr. President, are directing this
amendment not to the States that have to live with nuclear waste, we are directing it to the States that are concerned about
their highways and railways transporting this poison. 

It seems that we should care. How can anyone who considers themselves to be a supporter of States rights vote against this
amendment? It is clear that States rights then, if, in fact, they do not vote for this amendment, is as hollow as the arguments that
they could make on any specious legislation. The next time we hear moving oratory about the sanctity of the tenth amendment
and the need to protect States rights, I will simply refer to this second-degree amendment and ask where those strong voices
were on this issue involving the most fundamental of States rights. 

This amendment offered by this Senator and my colleague from the State of Nevada is something that every Senate office
should listen to and listen to very closely. Remember what we are saying is that if you are going to transport nuclear waste
through a State, the Governor should give the signoff. Why do I say that? What we are doing is saving this country a lot of
problems by saying, `Let the Governors sign off.' Nuclear waste will not be transported in the United States. It does not matter
how many bills we pass, it will not happen. 

I was in the House of Representatives this morning talking to one of the Presiding Officer's and this Senator's former colleague
when we served in the other body, and he said to me, `You know, I voted with Congress on Vucanovich,' who supported this
Senator's position on nuclear waste. He said, `I did it for a simple reason. If everyone says that nuclear waste can be
transported safely, then, obviously, it is going to be safe where it is to begin with. Why not leave it where it is?' 

The reason I say we are doing this country a favor with this amendment is that nuclear waste is not going to be transported.
Look at the experiences they had in Germany recently with the transfer of almost 500 canisters of high-level nuclear waste.
They wanted to haul this 300 miles to a remote place in Germany. We are talking about hauling it more than 3,000 miles. 

What did it take in Germany to haul this nuclear waste 300 miles? It took 30,000 police and military personnel. The average
speed was 2 miles an hour. It cost the German Government over $150 million. The German Parliament has said, `We're not
going to do this anymore. We are going to review what we are doing.' 

As we speak, Germany's Parliament is reevaluating the entire program. They shipped 8 of 420 casks of high-level nuclear
waste, and they have given up; 30,000 military and police personnel, 107 injuries, demonstrations everyplace, people dug
holes in the road and put barriers over them so the trucks would fall in them when they came back. It was absolute civil
disobedience at its worst. Why? Because the people of Germany are human beings, and they do not want this stuff hauled
unnecessarily. That is what this amendment is all about. 
The two people representing the very fine State of South Carolina were Governors of that State. Two of the most--I am trying
to find the word. When the history books are written about the U.S . Senate, the two Senators from South Carolina will be
talked about, the senior Senator and the junior Senator. They have made history in this institution. But they also, before they
came here, were Governors. They know what the power of the Governor should be. 

Shouldn't the Governor of a State, a sovereign State under our Federal system of Government, have the right and the
opportunity to say, `We will let this stuff travel through, but I'm going to have to sign off on it first'? If the Governor of the State
does not have that right to make sure that his 

citizens are safe and free of harm and that they can have enough personnel--in the instance of Germany, it took
30,000--shouldn't they have that right? That is what this amendment is all about. 

I do believe, without any question, we are doing a service with this amendment. We are doing a service because if you are
going to believe in this form of Government that we have, we have a central whole divided amongst self-governing parts--that
is the definition of our Government under the Constitution, a central whole divided amongst self-governing parts--those
self-governing parts are States, and shouldn't they have the right to determine whether or not we are going to haul this stuff
willy-nilly through the States? That is what this amendment is about. It is simple and direct. It says, if you are going to haul
nuclear waste, let the Governor of the State through which you are going to haul it sign off on it.