Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the statement of the Senator from Tennessee is valid, and I am confident that it is, then the 

Senator should oppose this legislation, because if he believes that there is potential damage to residents of the State of
Tennessee, then certainly he should understand that there is significant risk to the people of Nevada. The State of Nevada,
people think of as a big wasteland. The fact of the matter is that not far from the Nevada test site are over a million people. 

We have significant problems. But not only are there problems in Tennessee and in Nevada; what about the entire route of this
transportation? If the Senator from Tennessee is concerned about transportation of nuclear waste within the State of
Tennessee, he likewise should be concerned about the transportation of nuclear waste across this country. 

We have established, Mr. President, that there are significant groups who are opposed to this legislation. We have yet to find
anyone other than utilities companies who favor this legislation, and the utility companies that favor it are necessarily nuclear
facilities, with some exceptions. 

We have talked this morning and been given a few examples on this floor about the Baptists who oppose this legislation and
the United Transportation Workers and an organization in Missouri. We could give hundreds of examples. But I thought it
would be appropriate because people believe--I hope they believe--if you are going to side with the Baptists or the nuclear
utilities, you should go with the Baptists. But in case someone is concerned about that, we will look at the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America. They wrote a letter to every Senator in this body on March 20 of this year, where they have said, `Don't
support S . 104 .' 

In addition to the risks of S . 104 , it is objectionable because it weakens environmental standards for nuclear waste disposal
by carving loopholes in NEPA, preempting other environmental laws and limiting licensing standards for a permanent
repository. 

That, Mr. President, really says it all. If, on March 20, they felt that environmental standards were being weakened and
loopholes were being carved into the legislation, look what this legislation now is. Every hour that goes by there is a new
loophole. We raise a point of order with the Budget Act. Well, what we will do, we will make the utilities and the ratepayers
pay $2.7 billion a little early. We want to carve another loophole here for Washington. We will do one for South Carolina, one
for Tennessee. 

The Evangelical Lutheran church in America opposes this legislation, not because of the Senators from Nevada but because of
the Members of their ministry throughout this country. This is some of the worst legislation--and I have been in this Congress
for going on 15 years; I know a lot about this legislation--that has ever come through this body. You talk about special-interest
legislation; this is it. The Congress has been appropriating for about 15 years a couple hundred million dollars a year,
sometimes more than that, examining, characterizing Yucca Mountain. This legislation just basically throws it out. That is what
the Evangelical Lutheran church says. This legislation wipes out the legislation for a permanent repository, which is the only
hope of having a safe place to store it if, in fact, that can happen. 
If the Senator from Tennessee is concerned about safe transportation, he and the other Members of this body should revisit
what has taken place in Europe. I repeat, 30,000 troops and soldiers to carry six nuclear waste canisters 300 miles in
Germany--30,000 troops.There were one hundred seventy people injured. Many went to the hospital. And it cost $150
million to move it at the rate of 2 miles an hour. In addition to that--you think we have concerns about Chattanooga and Oak
Ridge being close to a proposed nuclear site?--look what happened in Germany. I am reading from the letter. 

                                         [Page: S2980]

The transport of these 6 casks required 30,000 police and $150 million, more than 170 people were injured, more than 500
arrested. Even the police have called for an end of the shipments. They no more like arresting demonstrators, who many
sympathize with, than they like guarding highly radioactivity waste casks. 

The writer goes on, `I measured the radiation of these casks at 15 feet.' 

Mr. President, that distance is from this Senator to the Presiding Officer. The radiation at 15 feet was 50 times higher than
background levels, an amount no one should be voluntarily exposed to, and pregnant women and children should never be
exposed to. The police, of course, stand much closer than 15 feet, and for hours at a time. No wonder the German parliament
has abandoned and suspended the transportation of nuclear waste in Germany. Why? Because you cannot do it. 

So if the sponsors of this amendment are concerned about the safety of the people from Tennessee, then they should be
concerned about the safety of the people of this country. 

What is the answer to the nuclear waste problem? Leave it where it is in dry cask storage containment or in the cooling ponds.
As the representative from the State of Oregon told me this morning in the House, that is why he sided with 

Representative Vucanovich. If it is safe to transport these nuclear casks, these dry casks--which it is not, we have already
established--if it is so safe, leave it where it is. That is why he supported Representative Vucanovich in the past. 

This amendment is special legislation, and my friend from Tennessee should be concerned, as I know he is concerned, about
the people of this country in addition to the people of Tennessee. That being the case, this amendment shows how fallacious
and weak and unsupportable this bill is. It is a bill that is rife with gluttonous nuclear utility industry. That is the only reason it is
here and the only reason it is being pushed. This legislation is faulty. It is fake. It is insincere. I said this legislation; I did not say
this amendment.