SENATOR XXXXX. Thank you, Mr. Xxxxxxxx. Thank you, Mr. Xxxxxxxxx and Xx. Xxxx, for being here today. I was in India at the time that this agreement was first an- nounced, and I have been supportive of the fundamental direction of it from that moment to this day, though I still have some clari- fication issues that are of concern. But I want to say a few things about the support for it or the fundamental direction. I voted for the Hyde Act in December 2006 after some significant nonproliferation concerns were addressed because, as you have said here today and others have said, I viewed this as a very important way to strengthen the partnership between the world’s oldest and largest democracies. I am inclined to support the negotiated agreement, but I want to look for some of these clarifications despite some lingering non- proliferation worries because of the importance of this emerging strategic partnership between the United States and India. And this deal will also help India meet its growing energy needs with- out relying as much on technologies that are unbelievably dam- aging to our environment, and that issue rises in urgency with re- spect to national security concerns. But make no mistake. I have said previously and I still believe that this is not the best agreement that should have initially been brought out in this negotiating process from a nonproliferation per- spective. You can’t go backward. It is where we are, and it is what we are dealing with. But I think it is really important for all of our colleagues on this committee to recognize the significant impor- tance of bringing India into the nuclear mainstream, given its long- standing status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty re- gime. The bottom line is that we are better off with that than without it. But there are legitimate questions about whether this step will make it tougher to strengthen the global consensus against Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear activities. That said, we can’t lump India, a responsible democracy that plays by international rules and has a strong record of responsible stewardship of nuclear tech- nology, in with those countries that have either outlaw or unco- operative governments. I hope and expect that this nuclear deal is going to open the door for greater cooperation with India on nonproliferation issues. De- spite its own arsenal, India has long supported the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, a dream articulated now not only by Xx- xxxxx Xxxxxx, but it is ...
SENATOR XXXXX. I am following you. But I am not sure many peo- ple are, and it seems to me that it would be a lot simpler just for the President to comply and certify and give us a single certifi- cation with an up-to-date list that answers the question of the cred- ible plan, that we are satisfied that the plan is credible. That is what it has to say to us. We shouldn’t have to look at this and draw it out of you through a series of questions. The President, under the Hyde Act, is sup- posed to certify to us that, in fact, this is a credible plan and that it is on file with the IAEA. And that is the requirement. Why doesn’t it do that? Xx. XXXXXXXXX. Because, Senator—because I think, Senator, ac- tually what Xxxx says is that the President needs to certify that India has filed a separation plan and a declaration with the IAEA.
SENATOR XXXXX. Correct.
SENATOR XXXXX. Mr. President, could I ask Senator Xxxxxxx x auestion. SPEAKER: If he will yield? S ENATOR XXXXXXX: Y e s . SENATOR XXXXX: Would you be 1n agreement to amend this down to 4,000 instead of 5,000. SENATOR XXXXXXX: Beg y our p a r d on. SENATOR XXXXX: Would you be in agreement to amend this down to counties having not more than 4,000. SENATOR XXXXXXX: No, I would prefer not. I would prefer to leave it at 7,000, We have a gentleman who represents the Hospital Assoc1ation who xxxx in and wanted to put it up to 20,000 and so we did some research and determined who it was that was using this mill levy and so we left it at 7,000. So, I would prefer not to put it down to that fi.gure of 4,000. Your county, Cheyenne, would not be included here. SENATOR XXXXX: Well, we don't have a county hospital but the one I am thinking about is Morrill county. Morrill county has a county hospital. Cheyenne county SENATOR XXXXXXX: I don't think it does, Senator Xxxxx. I don't have it here as one of the counties 1n the state that... let's see. Yes, it does. It does have a county hospital. They, at the present time, do have a .99 of one mill levy and it would appear that they might want to make use of this.
SENATOR XXXXX. Right. Now, can they do it under that xxxxx SENATOR XXXXXXX: The County Comm1ssioners could do 1t after having recommendations from the Hospital Board and so it would still be up to the County Commissioners.
SENATOR XXXXX. Xx. XXXXX. It would be a little disingenuous of myself to say it’s rail in Nevada. In order to get to a rail anywhere in Nevada you have to get on a rail from someplace elsewhere and so you have every single state, every single city on the way who’s interested in what’s coming between there and radiation, however safe it may be. So yes, we need a rail line in order to be able to do that and rec- ognizing that that rail is connected we need the conversation to exist bigger than Nevada. Xx. XXXXXX. Thank you. Xx. Xxxxxxxx. Xx. XXXXXXXX. Yes. I assume that the rail lines would have to be improved. But it also is a matter of what size shipments you’re going to use. Just because of the tonnage it makes sense to use rail and you’d have to improve the rail line. But if you broke it into smaller ship- ments to take it in over longer period of time in more random in- tervals to eliminate any kind of, you know, predetermined schedule for shipments you could also ship it with trucks. Xx. XXXXXX. Thank you. Xx. Xxxxxxxxxx, on another question—your testimony notes the design of facilities at Yucca Mountain could accommodate xxxxxxx- dated interim storage sites, which Department of Energy is cur- rently pursuing at others sites. However, Nuclear Waste Policy Act currently prohibits an in- terim storage facility and a repository in the whole state. So would you support removing this statutory barrier so Xxx County could compete with other locations to host a consolidated storage facility? Xx. XXXXXXXXXX. Yes, sir. In my written testimony too we be- lieve that the aging pads that are designed at part of Xxxxx Xxxx- xxxx would be a great place for that and we do realize that it would need to be amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
SENATOR XXXXX. Thank you. Madam President, fellow senators, I rise to support the Xxxxx amendment perhaps for some different reasons than have been spoken about and I agree with some of the speakers as well. It appears to me that Section 14 is out of place in the bill. It does seem to me like it's fluff and intent language which is suitable perhaps in another bill or in another setting. In the Banking Insurance Committee this year, we did have at least two bills that dealt with providing health insurance for children. We kept one of those bills alive and it's in committee, I think for the purpose of stidy, and looking at over the interim and I guess I think that' s the proper approach if we' re going to do something meaningful and I don' t know if the purpose of this section is simply to provide some balance in 455 to make us feel a little better about voting for it or what, but that' s the only reason I can see for having this language in there. The part of the language that I do object to pretty strenuously is that if it is the intent of the Legislature to do this and if we' re going to make this a policy and put the policy in statute with this bill, then why in the world do we shift the responsibility to the Governor to develop
SENATOR XXXXX. The answer to your question is, yes, the labor contract... this is boilerplate language that is always in there. In this case the Sluvic (phonetic) contract. The law enforcement officers is the one that specifically could be different. So the answer to your question is, yes, depending on what it is, the labor contract does supersede the law. SENATOR XXXXXXX: Okay, and do we know what the labor contract is in that particular instance yet, or we don't know yet?
SENATOR XXXXX. Senator Xxxxxxx, for youx clarification, the roadside rest areas under the interstate highway system are not under the Game and Parks Commission but are under the Highway Commission and there would be no charge, whatsoever, for the interstate rest stops. So that is completely taken out of the picture. SPEAKER: Senator Xxxxxxx, do you cax'e to r e spond. SENATOR XXXXXXX: Mr. President, may I answer that this way. I understand there are some that axe not that clearly def1ned as strictly Roads Department control and there is nothing that would keep the state of Nebraska from turn1ng these over to the Game Commission and then they can charge a fee. I want to make sure that under no circumstances, I don't care who ad- ministers it, that they are not going to charge those wayside rest areas on the interstate. SPEAKER: Thank you. Sen a tor Sy a s. SENATOR XXXX: We have special use areas that is under the Commission. S PEAKER: That ' s c o r r e c t . SENATOR XXXX: That's right. This gets a little tangled up between the wayside special use areas. SPEAKER: Well, the definitions, too. Senator Xxxxx, do you have some i mput . SENATOR XXXXX: Mr. President, xxxxxx's of the body, I believe the committee hearings w111 show that th1s question was ex- plox'ed in the heazing and that the Games and Parks Commission definitely want to exclude the wayside areas on the interstate and they intend to and I'm sure they have absolutely no ob- jection to wr1ting it into the statute. SPEAKER: The chair..the chair recognizes Senator Xxxxxxx .
SENATOR XXXXX. Senator Xxxx, if this amendment is adopted will you oppose the bill?
