Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do not mean in any way to denigrate pigs. I like pigs. As far as I am concerned, they do not look too bad. But no matter how you dress up a pig, formal clothes or dress, it still looks like a pig. And this legislation, no matter how you dress it up, still appears to be garbage. It is a bill that is not good legislation. No matter how you dress it up, it is a bad piece of legislation. Not the least reason for that, Mr. President, is the fact that now, this year, we are trying to interchange the word `viability' with `suitability.' They are two totally different concepts with two totally different meanings.

As defined by the Department of Energy, viability is simply a finding that to that point in time, no disqualifying characteristic has been found. It simply says to this point we have not yet found anything wrong. It does not mean that the site will be suitable. Subsequent to viability, there is significant additional technical study to be pursued in the context of a repository design. The site could still be found unsuitable for an extended period later, while they find out if it is suitable. So an assessment of viability does not mean much.

This distinction between viability and suitability has been repeatedly pointed out to the Congress. It is a shame that in this debate, this year, we are now trying to satisfy the element of suitability by using the word `viability.' The distinction was emphasized by the immediate past Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, who cannot be considered someone who is opposed to the nuclear industry. He simply said the finding of suitability is much different and a much higher standard than the finding of viability.

The distinction was emphasized in S . 104 testimony by the Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. He said repeatedly, as did the former Chairman of the Office of Radioactive Waste Management, `Do not confuse viability with suitability. Suitability is the final step before license applications can be pursued. No centralized interim storage should be approved before that suitability decision has been made.' This is very clear. So, in this debate let us not confuse suitability with viability.

There have been constant statements made on this Senate floor during the past few days that nuclear waste transportation is just fine, they do it other places. How many times have we heard statements, people saying we transport nuclear waste all over? Let me read from a letter written to my colleague, Senator Richard Bryan, on March 28, 1997. This is not something that took place in ancient history. This is a brandnew letter. Let me read it:

Dear Senator Bryan: As the Senate prepares for a vote on S . 104 , I thought you might find my recent experience with real-world transportation of radioactive waste in Gorleben, Germany of interest.

In early March, I was part of an international team which monitored the transport of six CASTOR casks of high-level atomic waste from southern Germany to the small northern farming community of Gorleben, a distance of about 300 miles. My experiences are chronicled in the enclosed issue of the Nuclear Monitor. But I want to add just a few points.

Too often, I feel like many of your Senate colleagues believe nuclear waste transportation is just another routine industrial endeavor and that, if they vote for a bill like S . 104 , this transport will just be carried out with few problems.

The reality in Germany is quite different. The CASTOR shipments were met with protest every mile of the way. The shipments were front page news in every German newspaper the entire week I was in the country. Near Gorleben, a farming area and home of the `interim' waste storage facility, opposition to the transport and the `interim' facility is very nearly unanimous. In some towns nearby, I could not find a single house or farm that did not display anti-CASTOR, anti-nuclear, and anti-government signs. Farmers barricaded roads, and dug holes under them so the 100-ton CASTOR casks could not travel across them. Schoolchildren were forcibly removed from their schools, so police could use them as staging areas. The CASTOR transports had changed a quiet, conservative region of Germany into a bastion of protest and anger, causing a divisiveness in German society only now being recognized by the German Parliament, which has begun hearings on the issues.