William Bryan: “It seems to me, Mr. President, that we have heard what essentially are three arguments by the distinguished chairman of…”

“It seems to me, Mr. President, that we have heard what essentially are three arguments by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. One is that it has been there for 45 years, and therefore it should continue in perpetuity for 45 years. Mr. President, I think the answer to that question is self-evident. We are considering prospectively what is the best location for the tritium production facility in the future. That is the entire purpose of the problematic environmental impact statement. Indeed, they may make and come to the same conclusion that our friend, the senior Senator from South Carolina made. But that is not an analytical or rational argument for a policy that has always been there, always been that way, and therefore we should continue that way forever in the future. The second argument that my friend made was to suggest that somehow the recycling operation has been at Savannah River and that by colocating the new production facility, somehow we would ease or eliminate the transportation of tritium. Mr. President, that is simply not true.”