May 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6233

Unless the nuclear power industry

has some well kept secret plan to shut

down and decommission every reactor

at each of these 109 reactor sites, by

my count creation of a new, central

site for waste storage makes 110 sites,

not 1.

How the nuclear power industry gets

down to one site, when its reactors are

still running, and waste is still stored

in pools on site, is beyond me.

The advertisement also ignores one

of the key problems with a central

high-level waste facility—the transportation of the toxic waste from the 109

reactor sites to the central facility.

The nuclear power industry, in its

obsession to dispose of its waste as

quickly as possible, is proposing to create thousands of rolling interim storage facilities, on trucks, and rail cars,

in 43 States across the Nation.

The nuclear power industry’s map

shows the location of the 109 reactor

sites, but not the proposed location for

the central storage facility.

There is a good reason for this oversight—the industry’s target for a

central storage facility is not central

at all.

Not even close.

Looking at the map, it could not be

clearer—only 15 of the 109 sites identified are west of the Missouri River.

This second chart shows the map

that the nuclear power industry, if it

was being honest, should have run in

their advertisement.

This map shows the location of the

current reactor sites, the proposed location for their central storage facility, and the likely routes through 43

States for the thousands of shipments

necessary to move the high-level waste

from around the Nation to Nevada.

It is obvious to even the casual observer that the nuclear power industry’s interim storage proposal could result in an unprecedented level of shipments of extremely toxic, highly dangerous radioactive materials.

Every Member of the Senate should

take a careful look at this map.

Nothing could make clearer the true

scope of what the nuclear power industry is proposing.

Over the years, as I have fought the

industry and the DOE in their efforts

to open a repository in Nevada, I have

often found my colleagues, both here in

the Senate and among the Nation’s

Governors in my previous position,

sympathetic to Nevada’s cause.

Many in the Senate sympathize with

the outrageous abrogation of State’s

rights.

Others understand the potential environmental risks associated with opening a high-level nuclear waste dump 90

miles from the fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States—a

metropolitan area with nearly 1 million residents.

Still others have understood the potentially grave economic damages that

could result from the transport and

storage of high-level nuclear waste so

close to the premier tourist destination

in the United States.

Unfortunately, however, these expressions of sympathy have not often

translated into action.

For too long, the commercial nuclear

waste problem has been identified as a

solely Nevada issue.

The general attitude has been we feel

badly for Nevada—but if it is not Nevada, who would be the nuclear power

industry’s next target?

This map should make clear that the

nuclear power industry’s refusal to accept responsibility for the storage of

its own waste will affect every citizen

of every State along the routes the industry will use to move the waste.

Even those from the few States that

are not targets of the nuclear power industry should be concerned. I do not

know how many of anyone’s constituents are anxious to share the road with

a truck moving high-level nuclear

waste.

Once the word is out to these affected

communities, no one will be able to

continue to dismiss the issue as simply

a Nevada problem.

In the absence of a permanent solution to the nuclear waste problem,

there is simply no reason to move nuclear waste away from the reactor

sites.

The only crisis facing the nuclear

power industry is a public relations crisis, not a scientific one.

The NRC has licensed technology to

store waste in dry casks, on site, for

the next several decades.

Some utilities, of necessity, have

taken advantage of this technology.

Most refuse to do so.

Why are utilities so adverse to accepting the responsibility for their own

waste? The answer could not be simpler.

Recognizing the political and public

relations nightmare of seeking permission to increase storage for high-level

waste on site, utilities are seeking an

outside solution.

Nevada, a State with no reactors and

about as far as you can get from a geographically central location, has been

chosen as the target.

Let me return for a moment to the

advertisement.

I have not even touched on the misinformation provided by the text.

The ad generally relies on the tried

and true tactic of the nuclear power industry to create the impression of impending doom if its demands for relief

are not met immediately.

Congress, then, is pressured to act

quickly, irrespective of the wishes, or

the health and safety, of Nevadans, or

anyone else.

This was true in 1980, when the industry claimed that reactors across the

Nation would soon shut down if they

could not get what was then called

away-from-reactor storage by 1983.

No away-from-reactor storage was

ever built, and no reactor has ever shut

down from lack of storage.

There simply was no crisis in 1980—

and there is no crisis now.

It is all an expensive, dangerous ruse.

I urge my colleagues to think carefully before falling for this, and other,

deceptive misinformation campaigns

by the nuclear power industry and its

advocates.

Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shelby). The Senator from New Mexico.

The Chair informs the Senator from

New Mexico that at 12:10 morning business is set to expire unless it is extended.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that morning business be extended for up to 15 minutes,

until I conclude my statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

fCUBA

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I

first want to say a few words about our

policy toward a neighboring country,

Cuba.

The United States objectives in Cuba

are not in dispute. Our primary objective is to move Cuba to a more democratic form of government and to a

government with a greater respect for

human rights. Also, of course, we want

to see the lives of the Cuban people improve economically, and we want to see

our historically close ties with this island neighbor restored.

First, let us review some of the facts

that led us to the present circumstances we find ourselves in. Fidel

Castro came to power in Cuba some 34

years ago, when I was still in high

school and before several Members of

this Congress were even born. He

quickly established an authoritarian

and anti-United States regime. He declared himself a Marxist-Leninist in

December 1961. Early in 1961, the United States broke diplomatic relations

with Cuba.

A year later, in February 1962, we imposed a comprehensive trade embargo.

The reasons cited for that were three.

First, Castro’s expropriation without

compensation, much property owned

by U.S. citizens, in excess of $1 billion.

Second, the Castro regime’s obvious

efforts to export revolution to other

parts of the world.

And, third, the increasingly close ties

that existed then between Castro’s

Government and the Soviet Union.

That was 33 years ago. During the

past 33 years, we have maintained the

trade embargo in place. In April 1961,

we tried unsuccessfully in the Bay of

Pigs to have Castro overthrown militarily. We began in 1985 to use Radio

Martı ́ to undermine Cuban support for

Fidel Castro, and in the Bush administration just a few years ago we added

TV Martı ́ to the mix, as well.

In 1992, we passed the Cuban Democracy Act in an effort to tighten our

trade sanctions. This year, we are

being urged by some in this body to

pass a new and tough measure entitled
S6234 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 8, 1995

‘‘The Cuban Liberty and Democratic

Solidarity Act’’ in order to give Castro

what the supporters of that legislation

refer to as the ‘‘final push.’’

With all due respect to President

Clinton and to many here in Congress,

our policy toward Cuba today is still

captive of the cold war mentality that

created it in the first place. Simply

put, the world has changed, and we

continue to pretend otherwise.

Mr. President, this is 1995. Our 34-

year-old policy of trying to remove or

alter the behavior of Fidel Castro by

isolating him diplomatically, politically, and economically has failed. History has passed that policy by. And the

cold war, which provided much of the

rationale for our policy, is now over.

We have normalized relations with

China—Communist China, I point out.

We have normalized relations with the

countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, and with all the former States of

the Soviet Union.

This morning, President Clinton goes

to Moscow to meet with Boris Yeltsin,

not to find ways to isolate Moscow or

to impose sanctions on Moscow for

their human rights abuses in Chechnya

or elsewhere; our President travels to

Moscow to strengthen our relations

with that important country.

Mr. President, U.S. policy toward

Cuba needs to adjust to this new reality, just as our policy toward those

other nations has adjusted. For over

three decades, we have tried to exclude

Cuba from acceptance by other nations. But our policy of trying to isolate Cuba diplomatically has made the

United States the odd man out in the

world community rather than Cuba. Of

the 35-member nations of the Organization of American States, all but 5 recognize the Cuban Government and have

normal diplomatic relations with it.

The Senator from North Carolina,

who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argues that the way

out of this absurd situation is to turn

up the pressure on Castro. As he says,

‘‘It is time to give Castro the final

push.’’

Mr. President, the sanctions and the

embargoes and the pressure that we

put on Castro in the past 34 years have

not undermined the support of the

Cuban people for his Government as we

have wished. In fact, a strong case can

be made that the constant menacing by

Uncle Sam has been used very effectively by Castro to divert the attention

of the Cuban people from the shortcomings of his own Government and

his own policies.

Mr. President, this administration

has been slow to face the need to

change in our policy toward Cuba. But

last week, we hopefully saw the beginning of a more rational policy toward

that nation. Last week, the administration announced that in the future,

illegal immigrants from Cuba will be

treated as other illegal immigrants

into this country, and I for one hope

that more steps will follow.

For example, as I stated here in the

Senate several weeks ago, I believe the

President should act to end the travel

ban on Americans who wish to travel

to Cuba. The President should also restore the right of Cuban-Americans to

make small remittances to their families and to their relatives in Cuba. In

my view, the time has also come when

we should begin to normalize trade relations with that country.

Mr. President, I realize that it is politically difficult to change a long-established policy. It is especially difficult given the political posturing that

is preceding our upcoming Presidential

election. But the time has come to acknowledge that our current policy toward Cuba has failed miserably. NEWT

GINGRICH referred yesterday to Cuba as

‘‘a relic of an age that is gone.’’ I agree

that Castro’s Government is an anachronism. But it is no more so than our

own misguided policy for dealing with

that country.

Most agree that President Nixon’s

greatest achievement was his decision

to change United States foreign policy

and move toward normal relations with

Communist China. That was many

years ago, when the cold war was still

very much with us. Now the cold war is

over, and a new and a reasonable policy

for our relations with Cuba is long

overdue.

I for one believe that the responsible

course for us to proceed with is to establish a new policy now.

fV–E DAY

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I

would like to make a few statements

about the occasion of May 8, 1995, V–E

Day.

It is rather difficult to think of any

event in the life of a nation more worthy of commemoration than the end of

a world war. Remembrance and reflection are crucial if we are to maintain

our sense of purpose as a nation, and

our appreciation of what we value

most.

The service and sacrifice of those

who bore the battle at home and overseas in the Second World War can

never be overstated. It was that willingness to give unstintingly not only of

effort but also, in many cases, their

lives, that makes the war years such

an extraordinary period in our Nation’s

history.

Americans who fought the war came

from every State in the country, and

my home State of New Mexico certainly did its part. Our own friends and

neighbors were heroic in their actions,

in their service, and in their struggle.

If not for their efforts, what would the

world be like today?

Franklin Roosevelt, whose death 50

years ago we commemorated on the

12th of last month, left a monumental

legacy for this country. Words from a

speech that he wrote for delivery on

April 13, 1945, had he lived to give that

speech, still sound out a challenge, one

rooted in the experience of the war and

pinned to his knowledge of his countrymen. He wrote for that speech:

The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move

forward with strong and active faith.

We did that in the Second World War.

So we must, every day, move forward

now from the conflict that threatened

to consume the world half a century

ago. Without the service and the sacrifice that we honor today, we would

have had no future as a nation. It is

our obligation to those who secured

that future for us to build on it as we

approach the new century.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the

floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, are we

still in morning business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are

still in morning business.

THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF V–E

fDAY

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today

marks the 50th anniversary of V–E

Day, the day that saw the end of the

Second World War in Europe.

From its European beginning on September 1, 1939, with Hitler’s invasion of

Poland, to the surrender of the German

armies in Italy, on April 29, 1945, the

war that was supposed to usher in the

1,000-Year Reich ended after 6 years of

death, genocide, and destruction on a

scale never seen before or since.

The outcome of the war changed our

world profoundly, with effects that

still resonate today. It left the United

States the sole undamaged world

power. With that status came responsibilities that most Americans had not

imagined at the outset. In the 50 postwar years, those responsibilities have

demanded more in American treasure

and lives than from any other participant.

European and Japanese cities suffered the destruction of repeated artillery fire and massive carpet bombing.

European civilians found themselves

uprooted, fleeing desperately from

their historic hometowns as massive

armies moved back and forth across

frontiers. But Americans paid a price,

too.

By 1990, it is estimated that the total

cost of the Second World War to the

United States had reached $4.6 trillion—including the postwar cost of veterans care and benefits. The cost of

caring for our veterans is a cost of war,

and should be recognized as such, lest

we forget, decades later, the price of