[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5907-S5926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued
Amendment No. 3226 To Amendment No. 3170
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] proposes an amendment
numbered 3226 to amendment No. 3170.
Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the first word of the matter proposed to
be inserted and insert the following:
3119. TREATMENT OF WASTE MATERIAL.
(a) Availability of Funds for Treatment.--Of the amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 3102(a)(1) for
environmental management for defense site acceleration
completion, $350,000,000 shall be available for the following
purposes at the sites referred to in subsection (b):
(1) The safe management of tanks or tank farms used to
store waste from reprocessing activities.
(2) The on-site treatment and storage of wastes from
reprocessing activities and related waste.
(3) The consolidation of tank waste.
(4) The emptying and cleaning of storage tanks.
(5) Actions under section 3116.
(b) Sites.--The sites referred to in this subsection are as
follows:
(1) The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, Idaho.
(2) The Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.
(3) The Hanford Site, Richland, Washington.
(c) This section shall become effective 1 day after
enactment.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I came to the floor with the
understanding that we are in a moment where we haven't been able to
move forward legislatively as far as the schedule goes. I wanted to
take a few minutes of leader time to comment on a number of specific
issues.
Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act
Mr. DASCHLE. Yesterday I spoke about the Paul Wellstone Mental Health
Equitable Treatment Act. This is a critical piece of health care
legislation. One in five Americans today suffers from a mental illness
every year. Many are now denied health care they need because of legal
discrimination by their health insurers. Such discrimination often
takes a terrible toll on people with mental illness, their families,
and all of us.
[[Page S5908]]
It is estimated that not treating mental illness costs our society
$300 billion a year. The Wellstone bill will end that discrimination
for all Americans. It is modest, affordable, and urgently needed.
I mentioned yesterday people from across America were coming to
Washington on June 10 for a rally in support of mental health parity
and the Wellstone bill. The famous Wellstone green bus that Paul loved
to campaign on is coming back here for that rally.
It is my hope the majority leader will agree to allow the Senate to
vote on the Wellstone bill prior to the June 10 rally. I think it would
be a fitting tribute to Paul, and it would make a profound difference
for millions of Americans who live with mental illness.
(The remarks of Mr. Daschle pertaining to the introduction of S. 2451
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
commemoration of memorial day
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, in the Black Hill National
Cemetery, SD, SSG Cory Brooks was laid to rest.
A member of the South Dakota National Guard, Sergeant Brooks died in
Iraq in late April, and his friends and family gathered to remember his
laughter, his joyful spirit, and his love of country.
Among the mourners was a man Cory Brooks had never met, Pat Red Fox.
Mr. Red Fox came as a representative of the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe.
Six months earlier, the tribe had suffered the loss of PVT Sheldon
Hawk Eagle, who died when his Black Hawk helicopter collided with
another above Mosul.
The families of Sheldon Hawk Eagle and Cory Brooks had little in
common on the surface.
But each passed along the values of service and patriotism to their
children.
With pride and sorrow, each said good-bye as their loved ones were
shipped overseas. And each prayed that Sheldon and Cory would complete
their mission unharmed. Today, they are bound to one another in
mourning.
And so to acknowledge this bond, this sacred bond that transcends all
apparent differences, the family of Sheldon Hawk Eagle sent Pat Red Fox
to Cory Brooks' funeral with one of the most valued gifts in the Sioux
tradition--a star quilt bearing the colors of our Nation, and the Sioux
symbol representing the immortality of the soul and the connection
between the living and the dead.
During the upcoming recess, our Nation will commemorate Memorial Day
with a special unity, immediacy, and poignancy.
As we honor those who gave their lives for their country in
generations past, young American soldiers today face mortal danger.
As we offer thanks for the sacrifice of families who suffered the
loss of loved ones, hundreds of American families are today mourning
the deaths of their children, spouses, and parents.
For them, the cost of war and the price of freedom is not a thing of
memory. It is the inescapable fact of their lives. And their pain and
shock reverberate throughout American communities.
All Americans stand together in awe of the courage of our soldiers,
and in gratitude for their sacrifice.
But the urgency of this Memorial Day also serves to amplify and
clarify our understanding of America's history.
Within the sacrifices of today's soldiers, we see a clear reflection
of the sacrifice of those who came before.
Like our soldiers today, our veterans, too, left families behind.
They, too, woke up to uncertain dangers. They, too, saw their friends
fall. Yet, knowing both their risks and their responsibilities, they,
too, performed their duty each day. And many gave their lives.
Forty years ago, President Kennedy noted that no nation ``in the
history of the world has buried its soldiers farther from its native
soil than we Americans--or closer to the towns in which they grew up.''
At our proudest moments, the American people have sent our sons and
daughters across the globe to fight for freedom.
Today, the honor of defending those who cannot defend themselves is
carried forward by young American soldiers. But their service is
doubled, for in addition to offering a chance for freedom to the Iraqi
people, they are renewing our understanding of the cost of war, the
price of freedom, and the immeasurable depths of American valor.
Seven hundred and ninety one Americans have lost their lives in Iraq.
Another 122 have died in Afghanistan during the course of Operation
Enduring Freedom.
As was true in World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War, South
Dakotans have volunteered for service in disproportionate numbers. And
as before, South Dakota has borne a disproportionate share of loss.
Seven of South Dakota's sons have lost their lives in this conflict:
CWO Hans GOO-Keye-sen, of Lead; PFC Michael DOOL, of Nemo; CWO Scott
Saboe, of Willow Lake; CPT Chris SOUL-zer, of Sturgis; SP Dennis
Morgan, of Winner; PFC Sheldon Hawk Eagle, of Eagle Butte; SSG Cory
Brooks, of Philip.
For them and for the hundreds more who have lost their lives in
service to their country, America is united in sorrow, and in debt for
their sacrifice.
But this sorrow, and this debt, is not unique to us. In many ways, it
has been the central experience of each and every American generation.
My father was an Army sergeant in World War II. He landed on the
beaches of Normandy with the 6th Armored Division on ``D Plus 1''--June
7, 1944.
He was injured during the landing, and, as he was recovering, one of
his duties was sending word back to the States of those who had died so
their loved ones could be notified.
That experience left my father with a profound sense of respect for
the sacrifices that freedom sometimes demands, and he passed that
lesson on to his four sons.
When I was a boy, every Memorial Day, my parents would take my
brothers and me to the cemetery to pay our respects to the heroes who
lie buried there.
Later in life, when I was in the service, I learned the lesson in a
deeper way, as friends of mine lost their lives in Vietnam.
The men whose names my father sent home from Normandy, the men whose
names are carved into The Wall in Washington, and all of the other
noble heroes we honor gave their lives to preserve our freedom.
We are in their debt--today and every day. Now a new generation of
Americans is called to battle--in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other
areas around the world. And once again, they are answering the call,
and making us proud.
In 1868, just three years after the end of the bloodiest conflict our
Nation has ever known, General James Garfield led the first observance
of the holiday we now know as Memorial Day.
Standing among the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers alike, he
said:
If silence is ever golden, it must be here beside the
graves of fifteen thousand men whose lives were more
significant than speech and whose death was a poem the music
of which can never be sung.
We do not know one promise these men made, one pledge they
gave, one word they spoke; but we do know they summed up and
perfected, by one supreme act, the highest virtues of men and
citizens.
For love of country they accepted death, and thus resolved
all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and virtue.
No words, no ceremony could add to the honor they won in their lives.
So this year, with the heroism of our soldiers so radiant, we must
acknowledge that Memorial Day is not commemorated for the sake of those
who gave their lives, but for our own.
We remember their courage because within it lie the seeds of our own
courage.
We remember their sacrifice, because it shows us both the cost, and
the value, of freedom.
Memorial Day is not merely a time to remember those who died in
uniform, but a time for each of us to rededicate ourselves to trying in
our own way, in our own lives, to meet the the example of patriotism
set by all the men and women who defend our Nation.
It is a time to rededicate ourselves to carrying forward the legacy
that has been passed down from one generation to the next.
As with the families of Sheldon Hawk Eagle and Cory Brooks, it is a
legacy that binds together every American.
[[Page S5909]]
It transcends borders and generations and all political divisions.
Above all else, it is this shared legacy, and the great gifts that it
has conferred upon our Nation, that we reaffirm on Memorial Day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Rule of Law
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the core concept which has guided this
Nation for 200 years has been the rule of law. That is why we have a
Constitution. That is why we have a judiciary. That is why we have a
national legislature, to make and revise the laws which rule our
conduct, one and all, no exceptions. Therefore, no one, not the
mightiest in his mansion, not the lowest begger on the street, is
above, beneath, or outside the law.
If a law is outmoded, has lost its utility, if it is obsolete, it is
not the place of any citizen, no matter how high or how low, to decide
it must no longer be obeyed. That decision rests only with the Congress
or with an interpretation by the Federal courts. That is the only place
that decision can rest.
Yet I have in front of me a memorandum written in January of 2002 by
Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel to President Bush, telling
the President of the United States that the Third Geneva Convention of
1949 is obsolete, that the War Crimes Act, which we passed in 1995
making it a felony to commit a grave breach of that Convention, is
inapplicable, and that as a result, prisoners captured on the
battlefield can be questioned using means that would violate the Third
Geneva Convention.
I am not talking about members of al-Qaida. The Gonzales memo
specifically discusses members of the Taliban. It makes an extremely
questionable argument that the Taliban are not prisoners of war because
they were not the government of a state.
That argument is most disturbing. In the first place, it represents
precisely the kind of arguments which the drafters of the Third Geneva
Convention tried to defeat, drafters who included representatives of
the United States. Those drafters repeatedly expressed their concern
that the German Government, the Nazi government during World War II,
used trumped-up legalisms to avoid applying the 1929 POW Convention to
captured prisoners. One of those arguments was that Polish prisoners
were unprotected because, according to the Nazis, Poland had ceased to
exist as a state. That is precisely why articles 4 and 5 of the current
Convention are written in such broad language with such inclusive
presumptions.
I am equally disturbed by Mr. Gonzales's argument that because the
Taliban were generally unrecognized as a legal government, they should
not be afforded the protection required for soldiers of a de facto
government. What particularly bothers me about that is the statement
issued by the White House late in 2001 that the United States
recognized that the Taliban was a de facto government of Afghanistan.
You cannot have it both ways. Did Mr. Gonzales forget that statement?
Did he ignore it or did he just not care that it squarely contradicted
his memo of January 25, 2002, made just days later?
When he sent that memo to the President, over the objections of the
Secretary of State, Mr. Gonzales and everyone else involved in its
drafting and preparation sowed a bitter harvest. They sowed the seeds
of solitary confinement, of sensory deprivation, of physical
mistreatment, of violations of religious right, of legal rights, of
rights against intimidations and threats and torture--all grave
breaches of the Third Geneva Convention. They sowed the wind, and now
we are reaping their whirlwind caused by that memorandum from the legal
representative of the President of the United States.
Amendment No. 3170
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Graham amendment.
It is almost unbelievable that we are on the DOD authorization bill,
a very important bill that we need to discuss and move forward, as it
supports a lot of important things for our troops, and our military
strategy. But somehow the other side of the aisle and the Department of
Energy think they can sneak in language to this Defense authorization
bill that would allow the reclassification of hazardous, high-level
nuclear waste and basically call it incidental waste. Basically it
would reclassify nuclear waste that is in existing tanks in my State,
in South Carolina, in Idaho, and in New York, and basically say that
waste can be covered over with cement, with sand, and could be grouted.
Basically, it says we can take high-level nuclear waste and grout it--
grout it.
For most Americans, grout is something they see in their bathroom,
not something they do with nuclear waste. Yet this is what we have
before us in the underlying Department of Defense authorization bill.
It is a shame. It is a shame that this body would allow such a
significant change, really a change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act on
how nuclear waste is classified in this country, without public debate,
without a public vote, without a public hearing, even without
legislation discussing that change. Yet the other side of the aisle
thinks they can come at 1 o'clock in the afternoon and offer an
amendment to change 30 years of policy, and that in the blink of an
eye, they are going to get a vote on changing that policy without
discussion.
The underlying bill is flawed. As far as I am concerned, it has made
the whole DOD bill radioactive itself. Why do they play politics on an
issue that is so important to our country? Why do they try to sneak
through a change that ought to be debated in public in full daylight,
with people weighing in on what is appropriate science?
Mr. President, if I sound as if I am a little upset about this
underlying bill and the fact that it has this sneak attack language to
reclassify high-level nuclear waste, you are right.
Fifty-three million gallons of nuclear waste reside at the Hanford
nuclear reservation in the State of Washington.
This Senator wants to see that waste cleaned up. I do not believe
that can happen by pouring cement on top of it and putting sand in
those tanks and all of a sudden now say we have cleaned up waste.
Nowhere has that policy been promulgated as sound science.
This is a picture of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and one of its
reactors in proximity to the Columbia River. My constituents in
Washington State already know the 53 million-gallon tanks of nuclear
waste are leaking, and there are toxic plumes that have already gained
access to the Columbia River. So, yes, Washington State wants the tanks
to be cleaned up. They want the material that has been part of the
nuclear mission of this country removed from the tanks, the tanks
cleaned up, the ground cleaned up, the plumes removed to the best
possible extent, in order for us to go on with our mission and our life
at the Hanford Reservation.
What we do not want is somebody to come in and say all of a sudden
these underground storage tanks that exist below ground should be taken
and cement poured on top of them and that means they are cleaned up.
It is amazing to me because when I think about the Hanford project
and what I think it meant to our country, these were men and women in
1943 who started on a mission to produce a product that would help us
win the war. In less than 2 years, they had the world's first reactor
going and they produced plutonium that provided a very valuable tool
for our country. Those men and women did their job.
Now we have been left with the aftermath of that and we should handle
it in the same professional way those men and women did, by cleaning up
the waste and recognizing that these tanks are leaking and they are
causing hazard to the environment. The appropriate way to clean them up
is by making sure the material is removed and that that material is
placed in a more permanent storage. That is exactly what science has
been saying. Yet my colleagues believe that in this underlying bill,
the Defense authorization, it
[[Page S5910]]
was somehow appropriate, in a closed-door session, with no public, no
public testimony, no public witness to this language, no bill saying
they were going to put this in the DOD bill, they can now sneak through
this policy.
Well, thank God some people in America are paying attention because
they are starting to respond. I will share some of that with my
colleagues. For example, the Idaho Falls Post Register basically said
those on the other side are choosing the wrong side.
What happened in this case is the Department of Energy--maybe I
should stop for a second and give some of my colleagues a little
reminder of how we got to this point, because everybody thinks
reclassification of waste is something that belongs to the States. It
does not belong to the States. It belongs in the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act that was passed in 1982. That was passed by Congress, after much
debate. It went through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and
the EPW Committee. They had a discussion about what nuclear waste
cleanup should be. They have the authority.
So when the Department of Energy recently said ``let us accelerate
the cleanup of waste, let us do it faster, we have an idea, instead of
removing all of the material from these tanks we can just pour cement
and sand on top of it and somehow we can get this done quicker and
cheaper''--I am sure everybody in America agrees that pouring sand
and cement on top of the waste that is there instead of cleaning it up
is cheaper. But no one says it is safer and no one says it satisfies
current law in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
That is why when the Department of Energy tried to use an order
basically reclassifying waste, saying, ``let us try this accelerated
cleanup, let us try this notion of grouting and see if it, in fact, is
the way we can do this.'' The courts have said the Department of Energy
does not have that authority to reclassify the waste; the definition
lies within the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and DOE was not consistent
with that act.
So what did the Department of Energy do when they lost that case?
Yes, it is on appeal. They can go through the appeal process. But
instead of coming to Congress and asking for public hearings on
changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, saying, ``listen, we think some
waste that ought to be able to be reclassified,'' they have snuck
language into the DOD authorizing bill.
Let me be clear again. Sneaking in language is having a closed-door
session, without public debate, without public scrutiny, without a
hearing on the change in this reclassification.
Now all of a sudden we are presented with this bill and people think
we ought to move ahead without removing this radioactive language that
is in the DOD bill, which I say has no business being here. If people
want to debate this policy, let us debate it in the broad daylight of a
hearing and discuss what hazardous waste is and the changes to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act that might be appropriate.
I guarantee, if somebody wants to change the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, that bill would not go to the Senate Armed Services Committee. It
would be a policy that was debated by the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee and by the EPW Committee. It is not the Armed Services
Committee's jurisdiction to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This
underlying bill basically will put in place language contradictory to
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
What are newspapers around America saying about this? Basically, the
Idaho Falls Post Register says, ``if the courts are uncooperative, try
blackmail. That is what DOE is doing by holding $350 million in cleanup
funds, including $95 million for Idaho's national engineering and
environmental laboratory.
They go on to say, ``if blackmail fails, start cutting deals in
secret with Congress. DOE found an ally and behind closed doors in the
Senate Armed Services Committee won a provision in the Defense
authorization bill that would allow DOE to reclassify the high-level
Savannah River waste.''
I think they said it best when they said the view from Boise is more
accurate, and that Kempthorne, the Governor, believes the measure
``would wreck Idaho's position in the court by setting a precedent in
short order, it would undermine the State's landmark decision.''
It goes on to say: ``Why would you reward DOE for its heavyhandedness
against the State by passing something in the committee with the
thinnest of claims to jurisdiction? If the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
needs revision, do so in the open. Hold hearings. Conduct them in
germane committees. What is going on here is not science, it is bare-
knuckle politics.'' That is from the Idaho paper.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer said a similar thing: ``The Senate
should halt the nuclear waste plan.'' Why? Because the bill gives the
DOE the reclassification authority and withholds funds, and that this
is a scheme to reclassify, hoping the States will cave in. It is not a
good idea.
What did the Idaho Statesman say? Well, basically in a headline that
said ``State Cleanup Faces An All or All Proposition,'' it said: ``We
expect the Feds to clean up and move out all the highly radioactive
liquid waste now stored in Idaho. No haggling, no shortcuts. Our
political leaders need to hold firm even when politicians in other
States are willing to cut deals.''
What did the Spokesman Review in my State say? I thought the
Spokesman Review had an interesting take. They said: ``For example, let
us say the next step would be to persuade the affected parties and the
public there is scientific consensus on this matter. Without that,
there will be no hope of political consensus. The U.S. Department of
Energy believes leaving some waste behind is a good idea but is trying
to slip this in as a seismic policy shift in the Defense authorization
bill without comment or without congressional debate.''
I think these newspapers have it right. In fact, another newspaper in
my State, the Tacoma News Tribune, said: ``It was bad enough that the
U.S. Department of Energy was trying to carry out illegal, quick, and
dirty disposal of the Nation's most dangerous radioactive waste. Now a
Senate committee is helping the Department circumvent the law.''
I think these newspapers are on to it. The Buffalo News, in their
editorial, called it ``A Dangerous Game.''
The Federal Department of Energy is trying to use
administrative sleight of hand to avoid its responsibilities
in the cleanup of nuclear waste at West Valley and several
other sites. DOD is trying to downgrade the threat of nuclear
waste altered in this bill. The department argues that the
waste should be classified as high level based only on how it
originated, not on what they are. But what they are still is
bad. It's still radioactive and it's still a Federal
responsibility.
That is from the Buffalo News.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have all those editorials
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Buffalo News, May 10, 2004]
Dangerous Games--Federal Effort To Bury Nuclear Wastes at West Valley
Is Unconscionable
The federal Department of Energy is trying to use
administrative sleight of hand to avoid its responsibility in
the cleanup of nuclear waste sites at West Valley and several
other states.
This contemptible effort involves downgrading the threat
of nuclear waste, thereby allowing the government to bury
that dangerous material at West Valley and other sites
instead of shipping it to a permanent repository as called
for in a 1982 law.
Fortunately, New York Sens. Charles E. Schumer and Hillary
Rodham Clinton recognized this downgrading for what it was, a
threat to West Valley and surrounding areas from the
possibility of future leakage of this radioactive material.
After they protested the legislation, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a
Republican from south Carolina who introduced the bill that
would have allowed the DOE to downgrade the threat of nuclear
wastes, altered his bill. It now will apply only to the waste
remediation project at Savannah River, S.C.
But that doesn't remove the danger. The House, essentially
led by Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, still has to
consider the DOE legislation. That cannot be a comforting
thought to residents living near West Valley.
The department argues that the wastes should be classified
as ``high-level'' based only on how they originated, not what
they are. But what they are is still bad, still radioactive
and still a federal responsibility.
Decades of expensive cleanup progress have improved safety
at West Valley, but the work is far from over. The
radioactive liquid wastes from a nuclear fuels reprocessing
effort have been solidified into safe glass logs, which were
supposed to be stored elsewhere. But the anticipated long-
term storage facility at Yucca Flats is years from
completion.
[[Page S5911]]
Tanks and residual wastes still remain at West Valley, and an
underground plume of water is contaminated with radioactive
strontium. Covering wastes with concrete won't help that.
The 600,000 gallons of West Valley wastes have their
counterpart in nuclear weapons production wastes at other
sites--53 million gallons at Hanford on the Washington-Oregon
border, 34 million gallons at Savannah River near Aiken,
S.C., and 900,000 gallons at the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory.
West Valley is the only site where the state shares the
cost of cleanup.
Those costs may run into the tens of billions of dollars
over decades, but the mess remains a federal issue. At West
Valley, the risk includes not only the site's land but water
drainage that flows into Buttermilk Creek, Cattaraugus Creek
and Lake Erie. Trace amounts of that radioactivity have been
tracked as far as Buffalo.
The DOE also is threatening to withhold $350 million in
cleanup money from military-related cleanup efforts unless it
gets a change in the definition of what constitutes high-
level waste. That bit of weaseling does the department no
credit. These sites were created by the federal government,
and the federal government should not be allowed to walk away
from them.
Acceptable cleanup at West Valley involves removal of all
wastes and dismantling and removal of the contaminated
structures that were used to process and store them. The
government cannot be allowed to escape that responsibility
through administrative trickery.
If the federal government truly could end a problem by
renaming it, we'd already be at ``mission accomplished'' in
Iraq.
____
[From the Idaho Falls Post Register, May 19, 2004]
Choosing the Wrong Side
Why would Idaho's two U.S. senators support the Department
of Energy against their own state?
You'll have to ask them.
A big vote is coming up--possibly today or tomorrow--in the
Senate.
Idaho has a lot at stake.
The outcome is expected to be close.
Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne is on the right side.
Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo intend to be on the wrong
side.
At issue is nearly 1 million gallons of high-level
radioactive wastes stored in Idaho. The Hanford nuclear site
in Washington has 53 million gallons. Savannah River in South
Carolina had 37 million gallons.
Federal law says that waste may be collected and stored in
a national repository. DOE wants to reclassify it, leave some
material behind and save a few bucks.
But it can't get a judge to go along. Last year, U.S.
District Judge Lynn Winmill ruled DOE couldn't do that on its
own. DOE appealed.
If the courts are uncooperative, try blackmail. DOE is
withholding $350 million in cleanup funds--including about
$95 million for the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory.
And if blackmail fails, start cutting deals--in secret--
with Congress. DOE found an ally in freshman Sen. Lindsey
Graham, R-S.C. Behind closed doors in the Senate Armed
Services Committee last week, Graham won a provision in the
Defense authorization Bill that would allow DOE to reclassify
high-level wastes at Savannah River. Another provision allows
DOE to continue holding cleanup funds hostage in Washington
and Idaho until the accede to DOE's demands.
Fortunately, the House version contains none of this
mischief. So even if the Senate goes along, there's still
hope a conference committee will reject it.
Craig and Crapo say they're willing to defer to Graham on
something they believe affects only his state--as long as the
cleanup funds are kicked loose. They also believe Graham will
be appreciative down the road when Idaho needs his help.
The view from Boise is the more accurate one, however.
Kempthorne believes the Graham measure could wreck Idaho's
position in the courts by setting a precedent. In short
order, it would undermine the state's landmark 1995
settlement with DOE, which requires the agency to clean up
the INEEL and ship wastes out of the state.
That's not to say Idaho isn't willing to negotiate. But no
governor can surrender unilaterally to DOE demands without
unraveling the 8-year-old truce that ended the statewide
battle over the INEEL, its future and the waste issue that
has raged for more than a decade.
Politically, two states are weaker than three. If South
Carolina cuts a private deal on waste, Washington and Idaho
are left to fight on their own.
And why would you reward DOE for its heavy-handedness
against the states by passing something in a committee with
the thinnest of claims to jurisdiction? If the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act needs revision, do so in the open. Hold hearings
and conduct them in the germane committees--Energy or
Environment and Public Works.
What's going on there isn't science. It's bare-knuckle
politics.
So as early as today, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., will
offer a motion to strip Graham's language from the defense
bill. She has the support of Graham's colleague, Sen. Ernest
Hollings, D-S.C. But it's going to be close, and the Idaho
delegation could make the difference.
Does Graham may have more to offer Craig and Crapo than
Idaho voters?
Maybe. Craig is in the second year of a six-year term.
Crapo just got re-elected to a second term. Although the
election isn't until November, Idaho Democrats have forfeited
the race.
Just the same, both Idaho senators ought to reconsider.
____
[From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 18, 2004]
Senate Should Halt Nuclear Waste Plan
Senators should halt the Bush administration's Department
of Energy's attempts to boss everyone around on nuclear waste
policy and end run the federal courts. The administration's
bullying tactics should be met with a firm refusal to submit.
The DOE has a responsibility to clean up the heavily
contaminated radioactive waste in tanks at Hanford and
several other sites around the country. A federal judge
already has overruled the department's attempts to reclassify
the waste in order to save money and leave it at the sites.
Legitimately, Energy has filed an appeal. But is has shown
horrid judgment with attempts to dictate changes in federal
law to evade its responsibility, blackmail states into
accepting the waste and free itself of state controls.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has put language into a
defense authorization bill to give the department much of
what it wants. The bill would authorize reclassification of
the waste in his state and let DOE withhold $350 million in
cleanup money for Hanford and other sites until their states
cave in to reclassification schemes.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., is leading a fight against
the plan. Tank waste at Hanford threatens to pollute the
Columbia River. Environmental groups rightly complain about
rewriting the waste law in a defense bill without public
hearings.
The Senate should strip Graham's amendment from the bill.
The Energy Department needs to clean up nuclear waste fully,
not evade public accountability.
____
[From the Idaho Statesman, May 11, 2004]
State Cleanup Faces All-or-All Proposition
Idaho's political leaders need to hold the Department of
Energy to a simple standard.
We expect the feds to clean up and move out all the highly
radioactive liquid waste now stored in Idaho. No haggling and
no shortcuts. Our political leaders need to hold firm even
when politicians in other states are willing to cut deals.
About 900,000 gallons of high-level radioactive waste sit
in underground tanks in the Eastern Idaho desert, above an
aquifer that provides water for many Idaho farms and
communities.
After decades of nuclear defense work in states like Idaho,
it's time for the Energy Department to fully clean up the
sites that helped produce the implements of the Cold War.
Unfortunately, the Energy Department has been more
interested in cutting corners than in cleaning up. The agency
wants to clean up most of the waste but leave a fraction of
it in the tanks, sealed with grout.
The Energy Department has been trying to foist off less-
than-clean cleanup as adequate and cost-effective. B. Lynn
Winmill, an Idaho federal judge, ruled last year that the DOE
plan violated federal law. Since then, the Energy Department
has pushed the idea in Congress, and it may have a taker.
With the help of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Energy
Department now has language in a defense bill limiting its
cleanup obligations in South Carolina, where 34 million
gallons of waste are stored at its Savannah River Plant.
The language covers only South Carolina, not Idaho. Still,
it could set an alarming precedent, and could put pressure on
Idaho's political leaders to cave to the federal government.
In Idaho, cleanup should be non-negotiable. Idaho has the
law and Winmill on its side and has in hand a binding
agreement with the feds mandating the tank cleanup. Then-Gov.
Phil Batt reached a comprehensive waste cleanup deal in 1995,
and Idaho voters ratified it a year later.
The deal gives Idaho leverage--but only if state officials
and the Idaho delegation hold the feds to every word of it.
Especially the word ``all.''
____
[From the Tacoma News Tribune, May 10, 2004]
Fix Energy Department, Not the Law It's Breaking
It was bad enough that the U.S. Department of Energy was
trying to carry out an illegal quick-and-dirty ``disposal''
of some of the nation's most dangerous radioactive waste. Now
a U.S. Senate committee is helping the department circumvent
the law.
The law in question is the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which
Congress passed in 1982. Among other things, this act
requires the federal government to safely dispose of high-
level nuclear waste in a deep underground repository. The law
quite explicitly specifies that the radioactive byproducts of
plutonium creation--a category of waste all-too-abundant at
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation--must be buried in such a
repository.
Despite what the law says, the Energy Department has other
plans. Hanford's high-
[[Page S5912]]
level wastes are presently being stored on site in steel-
walled tanks, many of which have leaked dangerous
radioisotopes into the surrounding soils. The department does
intent to encase most of the wastes in these tanks in glass
cylinders, which will be buried. But it also wants to leave
significant quantities on site. Naturally, the idea is to
save money.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, however, doesn't say, ``Bury
what's convenient, and don't spend too much trying to get the
rest.'' It says, ``Bury it, bury it all, and bury it deep.''
A federal judge in Boise last year called the Energy
Department on its scheme, ruling that the leave-it-in-place
plan would violate the law.
Laws, however, can be altered. That is what Sen. Linsey
Graham (R-S.C.) is now trying to do, so far with success. At
this behest, the Senate Armed Services Committee last week
amended a defense bill with a measure that partially exempts
the Energy Department from the requirement that all high-
level waste be sent to a repository.
The amendment applies only to South Carolina wastes, but
it's a scary precedent for this state. The Energy Department
has already made clear its desire for an incomplete cleanup
at Hanford, the nuclear contamination capital of America.
If Congress attempts to relax the disposal standards in
Washington as well, the state had better be given
consultation rights and veto power over whatever plan the
Energy Department comes up with. The department simply cannot
be trusted to act in the interest of Washington and its
environment.
As for Graham, his constituents in South Carolina ought to
be giving him an earful about the prospect of living in
perpetuity with the world's most lethal garbage.
____
[From the Spokesman-Review.com, May 9, 2004]
Debate Needed on Nuclear Waste
For the sake of argument, let's say leaving some lethal
waste buried at nuclear weapons sites is a good idea, because
the cost benefits outweigh the risks.
The next step would be to persuade affected parties and
the public there is a scientific consensus on the matter.
Without that, there would be no hope of a political
consensus. The U.S. Department of Energy believes that
leaving some waste behind is a good idea, but it is trying to
slip this seismic policy shift into a defense authorization
bill, without public comment or congressional debate.
Last year, DOE tried to get House-Senate conferees on an
already passed energy bill to accept this change. But that
bill has bogged down. Now it has found an opening in a bill
that otherwise has nothing to do with energy matters. U.S.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., is pushing the change, but
according to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article, a deputy
assistant energy secretary is listed as ``author'' in
supporting documents.
In effects, Graham's measure would exempt DOE from the
1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, allowing the agency to solely
determine when a site has been ``cleaned.'' This is just the
latest DOE maneuver to shut states out of the decision-making
process, which is in direct conflict with the 1989 Tri-Party
Agreement.
DOE has been trying to reclassify some ``high-level''
waste as ``low level'' for two years, but the states,
Congress and the courts have said no. A federal judge's
ruling sent DOE back to Congress to get the law changed. Such
a change would have enormous implications for sites such as
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, both of which are
near major rivers. DOE previously announced a plan that would
redefine as ``low level'' 53 million gallons of waste at
Hanford and 900,000 gallons at INEEL.
Idaho and Washington are against reclassifying the waste.
Said Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington: ``Trying to rename
high-level nuclear waste doesn't change the fact that it is
still dangerous, toxic, radioactive sludge that needs to be
cleaned up.''
Critics say another danger in allowing such waste to be
reclassified and permanently buried where it sits is that it
paves the way for the importation of any other waste DOE
deems to be ``low level.'' Hanford could be a dumping ground
for another state's waste. The National Academy of Sciences
has concluded that the best approach is to bury nuclear waste
deep underground. Since that conclusion, Yucca Mountain in
Nevada has been chosen as the national repository.
Without a scientific or political consensus, it is
unconscionable for DOE to seek such a major change on such an
important matter, especially in the absence of an open
debate. The agency needs to stop the repeated end-runs and
make a good-faith effort to involve all affected parties if
it sees the need for change.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, let's go back for a second to what this
issue is as it relates to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and what the
underlying change in this bill does. That is the question at hand.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle hope we can get rid of
this issue in one afternoon--again, without public debate, without the
scrutiny of changing the definition of highly radioactive waste. They
think we should just pass what is in the underlying bill. It has only
seen the daylight because of the objections of myself and other
colleagues and the scrutiny of the press. That is what has gotten them
now to offer the amendment on the floor. The amendment on the floor is
not sufficient to strike the language relating to the reclassification
of waste.
So what is the issue? In 1982, when we passed the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act--I wasn't here but other Members were--basically we came up
with a definition. We said:
Highly radioactive material resulting from the processing
of spent nuclear fuel, including the liquid waste produced in
the reprocessing. . . .
That is what this reactor did for us in World War II. It basically
processed spent nuclear fuel and that liquid waste was then stored in
tanks still at Hanford.
That the solid material derived from such waste that
contains fission products in sufficient concentrations. . . .
So that is what we said high-level radioactive waste was. We went on
to add to the definition:
Highly radioactive material that the Commission says is
consistent with the law requires permanent isolation.
That is what we said in 1982, that the spent fuel from these reactors
required permanent isolation. That is what the current law says. The
current law says spent fuel requires permanent isolation. That means
you have to remove it from the tanks that are there, because the tanks
are leaking and you cannot guarantee permanent isolation.
So the tanks have started to be cleaned up and the process for
cleaning them up is underway. But now the Department of Energy wants to
say, ``let's have a new definition of that.'' In fact, in the
underlying DOD bill, in section 3116, it basically says:
High-level radioactive waste does not include radioactive
material resulting from the processing of spent nuclear fuel.
How about that? One change in the DOD bill and billions of gallons of
waste in my State is no longer high-level radioactive nuclear waste.
Just like that, changing the definition. Yes, it says the Secretary can
determine whether various hurdles have been scaled, but that is
contradictory to the current law in the 1982 act.
I remind my colleagues this is an act that was passed through this
body after hearings, after discussion. I think the process may have
taken more than a year. It took more than a year to define high-level
radioactive waste. Yet now we want to pass the DOD authorizing bill
with this change in it and basically say, ``let's go ahead and
reclassify nuclear waste.''
I am not for reclassifying nuclear waste without a debate and a
discussion and, frankly, the notion that this underlying bill would
reclassify it in such an inappropriate fashion, to say you could
somehow call this grouting and that this would be a sufficient way to
deal with the country's nuclear waste, is incredible. It is incredible
that this is the scam being used on the American public just to get
this process in place.
Let's go through some of the history, because as I said, I think this
is really sour grapes by the Department of Energy, which has tried to
get this policy pushed through and has not been successful. In fact, in
2001, basically, the Department said that they would re-create a better
cleanup process. But, they said, we obviously have to get States to
agree.
They came to us in Washington State and we said: We have an agreement
with you about the level of waste that is going to be cleaned up under
the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, so we don't really
know what you mean by reclassification. At that time they refused to
say that they meant they would clean up 99 percent, or all that was
technically possible, of this waste.
So we in Washington State said: Listen, it doesn't sound like you
have a serious plan for reclassifying waste when you just want to call
it a different name. That is not an appropriate process. In fact,
Washington State decided not to do that.
Wisely enough, the Idaho court basically said DOE didn't have that
ability, they didn't have the ability to reclassify that waste. That is
exactly why they are trying to sneak this language in today, because
they would like to
[[Page S5913]]
continue to say that they can move ahead on a plan that, sure, would
save money, but who wants to save money by leaving nuclear waste in the
ground, where it is leaking into the Columbia River or the Savannah
River, or other areas of the country?
If somebody thinks this is an issue that affects the State of
Washington, or affects just Idaho, or affects South Carolina--it
doesn't. These are bodies of water, with the potential of nuclear waste
in them, that flow through many parts of our country. To pass
legislation without debate on changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is
an incredible statement, that people are willing to override 30 years
of law just to do that.
There are other issues I think we need to talk about. I am very
pleased the Governor of Idaho, Governor Kempthorne, issued a release
saying:
Federal legislation undermines the cleanup that was to take
place in Idaho, at the Idaho facility.
In fact, Governor Kempthorne has said his opposition to the
legislation that was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee is
because it allows the Secretary of Energy to withhold an estimated $95
million from cleanup funds, which is part of the debate we are going to
have on the underlying amendment. But then he goes on to say:
I recognize the need to ensure public confidence in how we
manage nuclear waste. This legislation would be a huge step
backwards, reinforcing public fears about our Nation walking
away from nuclear cleanup obligations. I am also concerned
this legislation will negatively impact DOE's compliance with
the 1995 court settlement case in Idaho.
I think Governor Kempthorne, who has to deal with this, just as
Governor Locke does in the State of Washington, has realized what a bad
deal this is for Idaho. He realizes the underlying language, when it
tries to reclassify waste, is a danger.
I find it interesting that we will forget the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, no problem. We will write our own rule about what hazardous waste
is. We will come up with our own definition.
The states of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, South Carolina, New Mexico,
and New York filed into the court case and in their amicus brief said:
DOE cannot ignore Congress' intent . . . by simply calling
[high level] waste by a different name.
South Carolina joined that case. South Carolina went to the courts,
put its name on a brief, objecting to the DOE attempt to reclassify
high-level nuclear waste by issuing an order.
Why all of a sudden are we now going to listen to one State tell us
they have the right to decide they are going to keep nuclear waste in
their State and they are going to call it something else? Nuclear waste
that reaches the Savannah River does not affect just South Carolina,
and a definition in statute that conflicts with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act does not just affect South Carolina; it affects everyone.
That is not the way to legislate, by sneaking it in without having full
public debate about this issue and the obligations we have for nuclear
waste cleanup.
What has the Atomic Energy Commission said? Basically, it said in
1970 that over the life of these tanks, basically you have a problem.
Basically, what you are saying when you assume that you will take those
Hanford tanks or Savannah River tanks or Idaho tanks or West Valley
tanks, and you are going to leave material in them and somehow put
cement over the top of them and everything will be okay--that is
counter to all the science we have had for 50 years.
The Atomic Energy Commission said ``over periods of centuries,''--
guess what, that is what happens when you leave it in the tanks for a
long period of time; you are talking about centuries--``one cannot
assure the continuity of surveillance and care which tank storage
requires.''
(Mr. CRAPO assumed the Chair.)
Ms. CANTWELL. They are saying if you put in high-level waste, we
cannot tell what will happen to that over a long period of time. That
is why the decision was made to take it out and put it in a permanent
storage facility somewhere else, because these tanks do not have the
capacity.
The science says that once you do the grouting of this waste,
unfortunately, your opportunity to do other things is much more
difficult. Once you have poured cement on the ground and solidified it,
the process of getting it out and retrieving it is made immensely more
difficult. In fact, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
in 2004 said:
Grouting residual high-level waste in tanks that contain
significant quantities of long lived radionuclides . . . Is a
policy that poses considerable risk to the long-term health
of the water resources in the region.
This statement is from 2004. In 2004, people have said this grouting
technique, which basically is storing this in the leaking position in
underground tanks, is a threat to the water resources of the region.
These tanks are not more than 7 miles from the Columbia River, not 7
miles from one of the major water resources of the Pacific Northwest.
It already has a plume of nuclear waste that has reached the river.
Fortunately, it is at a level that we can contain today but only if we
continue to clean up the tanks.
This proposal to pour cement and sand on top of it and just keep the
waste in the ground has not been proven as a secure way to keep the
waste intact and water resources clean. So what you are leaving us with
in the Pacific Northwest--in Washington, in Oregon, in the tributaries
feeding in and out of the Columbia River and into the Pacific Ocean--is
the threat of 50 million gallons of nuclear waste not being cleaned up
in a sufficient fashion and that waste ending up in the Columbia River.
Or in the South Carolina, Savannah River. Governor Kempthorne said it
right: this is a huge step backward because it reinforces the public
fears about this process.
This Senator wants to have the nuclear waste cleaned up in our State.
Some people may not understand the process, or some people listening to
this debate may even think this is somehow about four or five States in
this country. It is not about four or five States in this country and
just about whether we will change the definition of high-level
radioactive waste and what we will do about the definition.
That is what I am concerned about today in the underlying bill. This
Nation has a responsibility--as it had a responsibility in development
of the reactors, the development of the plutonium, and the development
of that product--this Nation has a responsibility for the cleanup of
those facilities. Oftentimes my colleagues forget about that
responsibility until it comes time to do the budget and people see the
huge amount of money that is spent on nuclear waste cleanup.
I would be the first Senator to say we have made mistakes in this
process. It is mind-boggling to think prior to my coming here that at
one point in time somebody gave contracts to a company to produce
vitrified logs, and they were not going to pay them until they made the
vitrification work. Somewhere along the way people figured that would
not work, that the vitrification process was not underway and
operating. But now we have been successful and vitrification is
starting to take place. That means we are taking the nuclear waste out
of the ground and solidifying it into a glass log substance and that
glass log substance will then go to permanent storage. So it will be in
a facility that can help store that product for an indefinite period of
time. That has been the plan. That is the plan on the books. That is
the plan of record.
But that is not what the DOE authorizing bill does. It says, ``no,
let's reclassify that waste and say that it is not high level. Let's
just call it another name, let's call it grout and say it is okay to
keep in the ground, let it contaminate water, and let's keep the
savings from that unbelievable shortcutting of our responsibilities in
the cleanup process.'' I don't think that is something we want to do as
a body and government.
I would like to talk about how this legal process worked and why DOE
is attempting to do this. What my colleagues seem to want to think
today is that this is all about giving the State of South Carolina the
ability to negotiate with DOE what nuclear waste cleanup should be. In
fact, as I said, in the underlying bill, instead of saying that high-
level waste is something that needs to be retrieved, basically that
spent fuel from reactors is something
[[Page S5914]]
that needs to be retrieved from tanks and put in permanent storage,
basically the DOE underlying bill says, no, high-level radioactive
waste resulting from fuel process can be reconsidered and considered
for a different kind of storage permanently in the tank. And that is
something South Carolina and DOE can do together.
That is not what the cleanup partnership really is. The cleanup
partnership is not about the State of South Carolina and the Federal
Department of Energy interpreting the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in a new
way by passing contradictory language.
Let's imagine for a second that we let the State of Michigan
determine what the clean air standards are for the State of Michigan.
Let's say that EPA and the State of Michigan decided, well, the clean
air standards for Michigan are going to be at X level, and that somehow
that is OK for Michigan, but somehow we do not think that is going to
apply to the rest of the country.
Does anyone think that once it applies to Michigan, some other State
is not going to say: How come you gave Michigan an exemption? They
continue to pollute the air at a level that the rest of the country
does not, which has a higher standard. We are talking about a recipe
for disaster in the courts and for predictability in the process. I
think it is very detrimental, where we are going with this legislation.
The court process that took place is now on appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court. We are still waiting for a decision. I think the
appropriate thing for the Department of Energy to do, while they are
waiting for their decision on appeal, is to say they want to come to
Congress and have hearings on changing radioactive waste definitions,
that they want to come and have a discussion about that.
I appreciate the fact the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, as this
issue was discussed in the Armed Services Committee, understood the
dangerous precedence of this language, and understood how important it
was to get the DOD bill done. He basically asked that they not include
that language in the bill.
Now, it was a closed-door session. I do not know what the real vote
was. I am sure it was a closely, hotly debated issue. But, really, what
they put in was section 3116, which would overturn 30 years of
carefully crafted laws and 50 years of scientific consensus related to
the cleanup of the Nation's radioactive defense waste.
As written, this provision--because it allows DOE to reclassify waste
that, as I said, for decades has been classified as high-level waste--
basically says the radioactive and chemical toxic components would stay
the same. So basically the same toxic level of waste is there, but we
are just going to call it another name. I appreciate the fact that the
Senator from Michigan tried to change this language and prevent it from
being in the bill. Unfortunately, it is in the underlying bill before
us.
The underlying bill before us also created a slush fund of $350
million. I find it intriguing. I love knowing a little bit about
software because when you share documents and you basically try to make
changes to documents, and you e-mail those around to everybody, you can
look at the text and see where the changes came from. It is very
interesting, this legislation was proposed by a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee. But when you check on who was really the
author of the legislation, when you look at who was making the changes
to the legislation, it was the Department of Energy.
The Department of Energy wrote the statute and basically submitted it
to the committee, and tried to make it look like it was a Member's
idea. This is coming straight from the Department of Energy, that lost
a court battle, and does not want to wait for an appeal, does not want
to come here and fight their battle in the daylight, but wants to try
to sneak language in a bill, in the hopes these people will blink on a
Thursday afternoon. Well, I am not prepared to have this bill move
forward without having this discussion today about this change.
Now, what was DOE's great idea that they submitted through a member
of the Senate Armed Services Committee? What was their wonderful idea?
Well, besides reclassifying waste, they decided, ``well, let's create a
$350 million slush fund that gives the Secretary of Energy the
authority to withdraw cleanup funds from the States of South Carolina,
Washington, and Idaho--until they agree with our reclassification
plan.'' Basically, it was to hold them hostage and blackmail them into
agreeing.
As I said, when the State of Washington was offered this deal 2 years
ago, we said: ``We are not taking any deal unless we understand what
you are cleaning up and how you are cleaning it up. The fact that you
think you are going to reclassify and rename this is not good enough
for us. Let's see the details.'' When they refused to show us that they
planned on cutting cleaning up all this waste, we refused to accept the
deal. Now they are hoping they will buy off some other State.
If the Department of Energy really believes science is on their side,
if it really believes this grouting technique works, if it really
believes this is the process we ought to pursue, then come before the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, come before the EPW Committee,
and debate a change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the policy that
defines highly radioactive waste and how it should be cleaned up.
I think it is a tragedy, especially when you think about the good job
the people did at Hanford, the process by which these people speedily
got to the business of helping us in World War II, in the cold war
years, and providing us with help and support. They got the job done.
They did their job. Now it is our turn to do our job and clean this up.
When you are talking about 100 million gallons of highly radioactive
waste that is stored in 253 deteriorating tanks in all of these
States--as I said, at Hanford we have 53 million gallons of this tank
waste, about 60 percent of the whole national inventory. So 60 percent
is in Washington State, along with other high level waste stored in the
Hanford 200-Area. That includes spent fuel and miscellaneous volumes
that contain high-level waste from offsite which are also buried in the
ground.
I am all for considering new technology and new ways to clean up
waste and to retrieve waste that is buried in the ground that is
considered high-level waste, which may have come from other States or
have been basically brought to the Hanford Reservation. Some has been
dumped on the Hanford Reservation and then has been part of the storage
there for some time, but that is a different issue.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act makes it very clear that spent nuclear
fuel from reactors needs to be placed in a permanent isolated area.
That does not mean pouring cement in tanks and calling it incidental.
It is very clear about that. So we can talk about other technologies to
clean up other kinds of waste, or we can come back and debate changing
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. But because 67 of the 177 tanks that we
have in Washington State have already leaked 1 million gallons of waste
into the ground, that is 1 million gallons of nuclear waste, this
Senator does not take this issue lightly.
DOE estimates that at Hanford, 270 billion gallons of ground water is
contaminated above the drinking water standards across 80 miles of this
site, and that plumes containing numerous toxins have reached the
Columbia River.
I think we have another picture of the Hanford site. I encourage all
my colleagues, at some point in time, to go to the Hanford site. This
site is in Washington State, but this is a Federal responsibility. It
is a Federal responsibility to clean up nuclear waste. It is not just
the province or jurisdiction of four or five States in the country. We
spend budget money on this issue, and we need to get the job done.
You can see one scene of the Hanford reservation, which is almost as
big as--a third of the size--the State of Rhode Island. It is an
immense property. I know the senior Senator from Washington State has
joined me, and she can tell you--because she was instrumental in
getting the Hanford Reach Monument created, preserving some of this as
a national monument for us. On the one hand we are preserving it as a
national monument and then deciding one day we are going to take high-
level radioactive waste, rename it, let the plume that is already
reaching the Columbia River to stay in the ground, and that somehow by
putting cement
[[Page S5915]]
and sand on it, we are all going to be OK.
Everybody wants to say how much cheaper that proposal is. I think
everybody in America gets how cheap it would be to pour concrete and
sand. What they want to know is whether it is safe, whether it is the
right technology, whether it is going to stop the plumes or leaking
tanks, whether you are going to change the current law first to get
there.
This is a beautiful, pristine area of our country that we can
preserve, but only if we do the job we are responsible to do, as the
people who created the B reactor and created this facility were
responsible in doing.
To be irresponsible today by offering this on the DOD authorizing
bill and thinking we are going to have a debate about it in a few short
hours and change 30 years of law and 50 years of science is shameful.
It is shameful that we think we can have this kind of discussion in a
few hours and wrap up a decision. If people are so sure about their
position, then hold the public hearings and have the debate. Because
these tanks are leaking and one million gallons have already leaked in
my State. It is not something that is a tomorrow issue.
What about the science? Let's go back, so my colleagues are clear
about how we got here. Congress required DOE to clean up these sites
and make it a priority, and they did that in that 1982 act. That act
reflected science dating back to 1950, when the National Academy of
Sciences recognized that high-level radioactive waste, such as the
waste at Hanford, must remain isolated from human beings and the
environment long enough for the radioactivity to decay. That is a long
process.
That is why the Atomic Energy Commission, a precursor to the
Department of Energy, also recognized something must be done to treat
high-level radioactive waste in the tanks and at these DOE sites, and
they referred to ``over a period of centuries.'' As I said earlier,
this isn't a problem where you think about it for a few years or even a
decade. You have to come up with a solution for centuries.
Over a period of centuries, the Atomic Energy Commission wrote in
1970, ``one cannot assure the continuity of surveillance of care with
storage tanks.'' Basically they said, you can't get it done with
storage tanks. So the science has not changed since then.
Yet there are provisions in this bill where DOE says, let's throw out
the science. And the provision in this bill would allow DOE to take 50
years of science and leave an indeterminate amount of toxic sludge in
these leaky tanks and simply say: Mission accomplished. I think we have
heard that statement before.
What science says is that grouting residual high-level waste in tanks
that contain significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides is a
policy that possesses considerable risk to the long-term health of the
water resources of the region. That is what science says.
The grouting proposal that is in this bill is a considerable risk. In
the State of Washington, we are very familiar with this. In Washington
State, thank God our Department of Ecology has had strong reservations
about grouting and we have vocalized those. For us, because it is 50
million gallons of this highly radioactive waste, it would have to have
been a plan for durability for 10,000 years. That is what you would
have to have. That is how radioactive the waste is.
What is bothersome is when people say an indeterminate amount, that
is what DOE can decide. An indeterminate amount? The last 8 percent of
the waste in the tanks has 50 percent of the radioactivity. Think about
that. So we are saying in this underlying bill, go ahead, DOE. Leave an
indeterminate amount in the tanks. Maybe they will say let's leave 10
percent. Maybe they will say, let's leave 5 percent. We know at 8
percent it is 50 percent of the radioactivity.
We think the grouting plan is something that is not the way to go. We
set it aside in Washington State. We said that basically glassifying or
vitrifying the waste was the way to go. That means that process of
turning it into a glass structure so it is a solid structure and taking
it to permanent storage was a better way to go.
As I said, in 2002, DOE wanted to use this accelerated initiative. We
in Washington State had people come and talk to us about what
accelerated cleanup was and what the schedule would be on high-level
waste. And we said: We want to understand how you are going to comply
with the agreements that are already on the table and with the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, with the triparty agreement, because this isn't the
first time the Department of Energy has had debates with the State
about their responsibilities for cleanup.
I can't imagine that there is an OMB director or a DOE executive who
does not come to that post and look at the numbers involved in cleanup
and basically says: Boy, there has to be a way we can get this done
quicker and cheaper. I am all about getting it done quicker, given that
I have a million gallons already leaking and running into the Columbia
River. I am all about quicker. But I am not about a plan that has not
been verified by science, that has not had a hearing in a full
committee as to this process and what it will mean.
Everybody gets the quick factor, but who said cleaning up nuclear
waste in America should be about doing it on the cheap? It is about
doing it the right way. As the Atomic Energy Commission said, it is
about keeping it out of the reach of humans for centuries.
Subsequently DOE has insisted upon researching new technologies for
the treatment of Hanford tanks, this new form of grout, cast stone,
steam reforming, and different forms of vitrification. In all, I think
there were three cases. DOE said they would still retrieve waste from
the tanks, but try to treat it and bury it in steel containers and
lined trenches in the Hanford site.
I can tell you, even the new and improved grout was quickly rejected
by the State of Washington and by other scientists.
According to the officials at the Washington State Department of
Ecology, grouting would have violated the State requirement that any
alternative waste that was not performed at the vitrification objected
to. And, in addition, the State found that this grouting would still
pose ground water risks and create leaching; furthermore, that this
would violate drinking water standards.
Even more interesting is the fact that the grouting was not to be
found more efficient. In some instances, grouting wasn't found to be
any cheaper than other options of cleaning up the tanks. While
everybody says that pouring cement and sand on this is a great way to
clean up nuclear waste, most people figured out that leaking would
still happen and that nuclear waste would still need to be removed.
They figured out that it was even more expensive to remove than waste.
So those are the scenarios with which we are dealing. Those are the
scenarios that have been discussed. This debate--whether we want to
reclassify nuclear waste and call it low-level waste and say we are
going to grout it--might be new to some of my colleagues in the Senate
as to. But for the State of Washington, we already said this plan
wasn't acceptable science, and that reclassification was something we
didn't think we should go along with, when DOE wasn't willing to give
us a definition on how they were going to clean up the waste.
So this is very difficult because the tanks holding sludge and salt
cake and hard heels--this would mean the waste in those tanks would not
be penetrated to remove and segregate the radionuclides. The hazardous
material would not be separated out and removed. It means those tanks
would not be thoroughly mixed without the right level of product.
Basically, what they found is that grout, as engineered, is not an
option that protects human health and the environment for such a
significant portion of tank waste, when we don't know the definition,
because it is an indeterminate amount of tank waste.
As I said, even the last 8 percent of tank waste includes 50 percent
of the radioactivity. How do you know, by using this grouting process,
that you have successfully rendered this a nonhazardous substance? So
grout as an in-tank treatment for significant waste volume will be, as
I said, probably more expensive than other routes when we find out that
it is not successful.
The best science says is don't hold States hostage by reclassifying
waste
[[Page S5916]]
and telling them we are not going to give them money for cleanup unless
they agree to our definition. This definition is something that the
Department of Energy thinks they can come up with on their own. But the
courts have determined that DOE doesn't have that authority.
The courts have not sided in DOE's favor. The courts have not said
don't go ahead with cleanup. They didn't say you cannot move forward on
cleaning up the tanks. The courts said: DOE cannot move forward on its
plan of reclassifying waste and saying that it is a grout process and
that is going to work. It says you cannot move forward on that.
So back to the underlying bill and what happened in the Defense
authorization bill. There was an amendment that would enable the
Department of Energy to exempt an intermediate amount of highly
radioactive waste from regulation as high-level radioactive waste.
I am reading from legal counsel's interpretation of this underlying
provision in the DOD bill. This interpretation says the amendment would
allow the Department of Energy to continue to store waste long thought
destined for deep geologic repository in existing storage tanks or send
them to waste isolation pile-up plants or low-level radioactive waste
burial sites. It also would exempt the Department's handling of those
wastes from the license and regulation by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. It will, in short, overturn the fundamental
legal principles that have governed the disposal of these wastes for
the past 30 years.
This legal briefing goes on to point out--which I think is very
important--that for nearly half a century, when the DOE and its
predecessors made plutonium for their nuclear weapons, they did so by
irradiating uranium fuel, transforming it into plutonium, and
reprocessing the spent fuel, as I showed in the picture with the
reactor. And that became high-level radioactive waste. This is the term
given to the plutonium spent fuel from the reactors was high-level
waste.
So what did the Nuclear Waste Policy Act say? In 1981, the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act said: Let's establish a comprehensive program for the
disposal of this spent nuclear fuel, and put it in deep geologic
repositories licensed by the Commission.
So let me be clear about this point, because I am sure we will hear
about this in the debate. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was given
the responsibility of the deep geological repository license procedure.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was not given the responsibility for
these low-level tanks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was not given
the responsibility to interpret this change in the DOD bill as it
relates to whether this is a cleanup plan and whether they can license
it because that is not their responsibility. Their responsibility, as
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is on Yucca Mountain and the deep
geological solution. That is what their responsibility is.
The act directed the President to decide whether high-level
radioactive defense waste should be disposed of in the same repository
as civilian waste, or in a separate repository. So in 1985, President
Reagan decided this defense waste should be put in the same repository
as civilian waste.
The 1982 act defines high-level radioactive waste. We had a decision
by the President in 1985 that military waste should be treated as
civilian waste, and that the civilian waste should be put in the same
spot.
So that is the plan we have been on. Now, I have had some concerns
about how much waste you are actually going to take out of Hanford
because, I tell you what, I want more than 17 percent of the waste
taken from Hanford to go to Yucca Mountain. I want it cleaned up and I
want it in a permanent place.
I don't want grouting and I don't want to have plumes continuing to
leak. But that was the decision made in 1985, and the President made
that decision. They said, let's vitrify this waste, glassify it, take
it out of the tanks, turn it into glass logs, and take that to a site
for permanent storage, wherever that site is.
The plan, since 1985, has not been to pour cement and sand and create
grout leaving some percentage, some indeterminate amount of waste in
tanks.
I cannot emphasize how important it is if DOE believes in this
philosophy, this science, if DOE thinks this is the successful course
of discussion that should happen with spent nuclear fuel, then come to
the broad daylight of a Senate hearing and make their case and put that
before the appropriate Senate committees. If they are so proud of their
science and the standing of their decision, they should have no problem
doing that. As Governor Kempthorne of Idaho said, when you don't end up
achieving public consensus, you don't do anybody any favors.
The issue is the Department of Energy knows all too well, because
these States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and South Carolina
challenged the Department of Energy in court, that these States do not
believe this order or plan for reclassifying waste is sound science.
They do not believe it is sound science. That is why they challenged it
in court.
I know the Department of Energy knows they cannot waltz into the
Senate hearing rooms and make their case without hearing the critiques
of the experts who have been dealing with this issue for years and
years. And by ``the experts,'' I mean not only the scientists, but the
people who have to live with the economic and health consequences of
having a million gallons of nuclear waste leak into the ground and make
its way to the Columbia River. Those people are paying attention, and
they are paying attention to the fact that this science is not standing
the test of daylight and scrutiny. If it were, they would be here
debating it.
I am saying to them now, this Senator, and I am sure members of other
committees, welcomes the opportunity to understand this technology, to
understand this new process, to understand exactly how taking some
level of spent fuel from these reactors in these underground tanks and
somehow pouring a grouting material on them is going to make for a
successful cleanup effort.
I am sure my colleagues would love to hear if it actually saves
billions of dollars and can be safe and sound science. But if that is
the case, then we should not be in a rush today. After the courts have
already said DOE does not have the authority to change this policy
without the approval of Congress, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, my
colleagues should not be in a hurry to pass this legislation that
basically says in a contradictory form: Go ahead, DOE Secretary,
reclassify the waste because nuclear waste from spent fuel does not
have to be classified as highly radioactive.
The definition of highly radioactive waste that is used in the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act was initially modeled after the definition
found in the West Valley demonstration project. That is a commercial
site in New York. I am again reading from the legal opinion Energy
counsel has provided to us.
It basically said waste produced by reprocessing of spent fuel, that
it included both liquid waste and that waste directly from reprocessing
and dry solid material derived from that solid waste.
In addition, it gave the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the authority
to include other waste in the definition of such material.
Significantly, West Valley gave the Commission power to add material
other than reprocessing waste to the definition, but not to exempt any
part of the processing of waste.
We have had this debate, and I know the Department of Energy objected
to the definition. I know they wanted the regulatory agencies to be
able to exclude material from high-level radioactive waste. I know that
is what they wanted. But Congress rewrote the definition, not as the
Department asked, but, as enacted, the final definition provides, as I
said earlier, high-level radioactive waste means material from
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and that other radioactive material
that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines requires
permanent isolation.
That is the process by which we, as the legislative branch, have
gotten to the point of making decisions about this incredible product
that was made by men and women throughout our country in the 1940s. It
was a time of great military need, during World War II and the cold
war. And they did their job, as the federal government had asked.
[[Page S5917]]
Now we are saying we are going to ignore the definitions and the
process and not really have a hearing on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
or the fact that the DOE has already been turned down in the courts in
its ability to reclassify that waste.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Washington
will allow me a moment.
Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator have a question?
Mr. ALLARD. Pardon?
Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator have a question?
Mr. ALLARD. I do not have a question. I wanted to know how much
longer the Senator from Washington will take because we have Members in
the Chamber who would like to speak. They have schedules and would like
to get some feel of when their opportunity may come up to speak.
Ms. CANTWELL. Without yielding the floor.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Washington how much
longer she anticipates taking to complete her remarks.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have some more material on the history
of the process. I see 2 of my colleagues in the Chamber who are also
very concerned about this issue, but I imagine at least another half
hour or so longer, maybe more.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for that guidance.
Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator from Washington have a question?
Mr. ALLARD. I would hope we could go back and forth. I think that is
the way the debate has been going. The next Senator I will call on is
Senator Inhofe, and then whoever on your side.
Ms. CANTWELL. I obviously want my colleagues to join in the debate on
this issue, but the reason this Senator feels so strongly about this
process is because I do believe this measure does not belong on the
Defense authorization bill. We have a very important piece of
legislation that needs to move through the process, and yet we have an
entity the courts have turned down, that believes that States have
turned them down, that believes this is a controversial issue, and
thinks they ought to sneak it in on a DOD bill and that is a way to do
legislation. It is not the way to do legislation.
This is the only opportunity we have to expose the fact this
legislation has been drafted this way and the unbelievable effect it
has on so many people in this country when the Department of Energy can
author legislation and give it to a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee who then offers it in a mark-up in private and includes it in
the legislation.
I am going to take a little more time to go over these facts because
I think the bright light of day needs to shine on the fact the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 ought to have the attention of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and ought to have the attention of the
Environment and Public Works Committee and not be proposed on the
Defense authorization bill without the scrutiny of public debate and
foresight that such a huge, significant change in policy would bring
about.
This is why I am going to take as much time as necessary to explain
this policy and to say to the members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee that while any member has the ability to offer any amendment
they want, including in an authorizing bill, usually it is the other
way around. We have authorizing on appropriations and issues of that
nature that have caused----
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator will yield for a question.
Mr. INHOFE. I remind the Senator from Washington, if she is concerned
about the action that we had proposed with the Environment and Public
Works Committee, I chair that committee and I am waiting to be heard
concerning this issue because I also have a lot of interest in it. I
appreciate the fact that the Senator is suggesting our jurisdiction
should be heard, and that is what I am waiting to do.
Will the Senator agree with that?
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for his question. The issue is that
the Senate Armed Services Committee should never have voted and
considered this legislation in a closed door session without those
hearings. So I certainly want the Member to be heard but--I think I
have the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield the floor for a question?
Ms. CANTWELL. I think I have the floor, Mr. President, and I will
yield in a moment for another question.
The issue is that we have been trying to work with the author of this
legislation on a compromise that would promote a dialog and a hearing.
My staff has been working diligently since the language came out of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
This morning we learned without warning, without notice, that perhaps
now they did not want to continue discussion on that, they did not want
to continue discussion on how we brought this issue to light.
I really did not want to spend the afternoon on the Senate floor. We
had hoped we would actually propose a better process and procedure, but
others want to move forward on changing the underlying bill, which in
this amendment is still flawed. The proposed amendment by Senator
Graham of South Carolina makes a bad situation slightly better but does
not correct the underlying problem. And this Senator whose home state
has one million gallons of nuclear waste flowing to the Columbia
River--is going to be heard on the details of this proposal.
The fact that we have not had a full public hearing on a significant
change in 30 years of policy and 50 years of science is something that,
if it takes me 5 hours to explain, I will take it. I will take the 5
hours to explain to my colleague the significance of these changes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a
question?
Ms. CANTWELL. I will yield to the Senator for a question.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. May I most respectfully explain that
under the Senate rules of allocation of committee responsibilities,
this issue of the nuclear waste is directly within the purview of the
Senate Armed Services Committee. We control, through oversight, 70
percent of the budget of the Department of Energy. The cost of nuclear
waste cleanup comes before our committee. So I want to say to my
distinguished colleague, while she may have concerns about the
legislative process as a whole, there is no doubt about the
jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee over this subject.
We have put in our bill, which is now at the desk and the subject of
debate, the specific provisions the Senator is addressing.
Jurisdictionally we had the perfect right to incorporate in our bill
such legislative language we deemed as a committee necessary for
dealing with this question of this specific type of nuclear waste. I
was not certain that the distinguished Senator was aware that clearly
this is in the jurisdiction of this committee.
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for his question, but under rule
XXV, the Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction over national
security aspects of nuclear energy, the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee has jurisdiction over nonmilitary development of nuclear
energy, and the EPW Committee has jurisdiction over the nonmilitary
environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy.
Undoubtedly SASC has jurisdiction over the reprocessing that created
the tanks to begin with because DOE was responsible for the national
security, but I do not see how anyone could seriously argue how the
waste, disposal, and cleanup of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is a part
of the national security aspect of the Senate Armed Services
Committee's jurisdiction.
While I am more than happy that the committee has used this authority
to bring this issue up, I think the committee is doing an injustice to
say to our colleagues that a change that is in contradiction to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act ought to be passed by the committee without
hearing, without debate, without full scrutiny of public daylight. This
provision would really contradict 30 years of law on the books when the
agency promulgating that rule change lost a court battle basically
telling it it does not have the authority to redefine high-level
nuclear waste.
I fully respect, because of all the committees that I work with, I
know that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee always strives
to be fair and balanced at his hearings. And
[[Page S5918]]
there are difficult challenges that we have had over many sensitive
subjects in the last several weeks. The chairman has gone way out of
his way to make sure the continuity of that committee works well and
that the rules and processes are followed. But I say to the chairman
that if the Department of Energy is so sure about these statutory
changes they are promulgating through his committee without debate,
then they ought to be willing to have the hearings and have the debates
with the other committees that have jurisdiction for the cleanup, not
the national security efforts the Senator was responsible for as the
chairman of that committee.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could reply, without the Senator
losing her right to the floor, I will shortly bring the President's
budget request for funds. I will bring appropriations acts and I will
show the Senator the direct linkage of the request for funds coming to
the Armed Services Committee, the Armed Services Committee bill going
to the Appropriations Committee, and action by the Appropriations
Committee on the authorizations of expenditure of the funds for nuclear
waste and cleanup. It is irrefutable, and I will take a little time to
go out and get the documentation. Then I will ask unanimous consent to
print that documentation in the Record.
I thank the Senator.
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the chairman again for his statement. I point
out to him that the difference between authorizing for appropriations
and oversight of policy, and what I am debating is that the committee's
oversight over nuclear waste cleanup policy as set out in the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act. When that was passed in 1982 and moved through the
legislative branch and made its way through the debates, it was debated
in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and EPW Committee. As the
parliamentarian referred to those committees, I am sure that the SASC,
because of its nature of the appropriated funds, has some
responsibilities. But I do not think that the SASC is the committee of
jurisdiction for changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I do not think
that is the primary responsibility of that committee.
So, I don't know. I say to the Senator, the chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, I have a great deal of respect for his
willingness at all times in the most difficult of situations to try to
have consideration of issues be as fair and balanced as possible, and
to give Members their opportunity. I am happy to continue to discuss
with him the nuances of this particular issue. But I have a feeling
that if we had this Nuclear Waste Policy Act before us today and we
asked the Parliamentarian--this change that is in your bill, under a
separate act, under a separate stand-alone bill--it would not be
referred to that committee. It would be referred jointly to those other
committees and maybe to SASC in the authorizing of an appropriation,
but not for the policy change.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will reply later today with the
documents in hand.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think there are several other people
here.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator respond to a question from the Senator?
Ms. CANTWELL. Without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. REID. Yes. I say to my friend from Washington, having spoken with
her, it is my understanding the Senator has said publicly that if we
came back after the break, the Senator would be willing to look very
closely at the amendment pending and would be willing to offer one of
her own, that she would agree to a time certain on that amendment. Is
that true?
Ms. CANTWELL. I simply want the issue to have the appropriate amount
of debate and dialog. All of us will have the opportunity to vote up or
down on any of the amendments anybody wants to offer to this section.
But the question before us was, all of a sudden at 11:30 today, without
notice, when we had been in negotiations on this language, to bring it
to the floor, this Senator feels obligated to make sure this time
period is used to bring committee members and colleagues up to speed
about the contents of the underlying bill.
Mr. REID. Does the Senator yield for another question?
Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
Mr. REID. It is my further understanding the Senator, who has spoken
for some time now, has a lot more to say, is that right, on this
amendment, on this date? She has only gotten warmed up; is that right?
Ms. CANTWELL. That is correct.
Mr. REID. And you, as a matter of courtesy, will allow Senators
Hollings and Murray and anyone on the majority side to speak and you
will be back at a later time for another round or two; is that correct?
Ms. CANTWELL. That is correct. I will give my colleagues from
Washington and South Carolina an opportunity to join in this debate and
participate because I think it is very important that this issue
receive the full attention of Members. As I said at the beginning of
this discussion, I do not believe this is an issue--even though a lot
of my colleagues would like to classify it as an issue that only
affects Washington State, South Carolina, or Idaho perhaps with some
impact on Oregon and maybe Georgia, or New York in its commercial
facility. I have never thought of this nuclear waste issue as a
geographic-specific debate.
Our responsibility as a body is to make sure nuclear waste cleanup
happens in a process that the science determines will not be with harm
to humans or to the environment. We now have a proposal before us that
science says will be harmful, that is not based on sound science, that
has not met the test, nor has our approval.
While I am willing to have this debate, I hope my colleagues will use
this debate as an opportunity to understand our challenge on nuclear
waste cleanup and the tremendous amount of resources that are spent by
our Government on that cleanup and the efficiencies that need to happen
to make that process go more smoothly than it has in the past.
But I can guarantee to my colleagues that wanting that process to go
more smoothly in the future, and wanting it to be more cost effective,
does not simply mean coming up with a short-term proposal, a fix that
is counter to what existing statute and law is. If we want to have that
debate, let's go through the normal committees and have that debate,
and let's have the scientists come in and discuss it with us, and let's
not end up with a process where we are going to be battling in the
courts. I don't think that does any of us any good. Certainly, for us
in the State of Washington, with a 1-million-gallon plume heading
toward the Columbia River, it doesn't do us any good.
I hope my colleagues will use this opportunity to focus attention not
just on the question at hand, of high-level radioactive waste, but I
would say the consistency by which the States of Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, South Carolina, and others have banded together in the last year
or two in authorizing and appropriations language that has done a good
job to make sure the processing of radioactive waste is completed.
I remind my colleagues, this is the first time I think the Department
of Energy has successfully picked off a State. At first the underlying
language was actually blackmail: We are going to make this change and
nuclear waste is going to be reclassified, and if you are going to
agree with us, we will give you some money, and if you don't agree with
us, we are not cleaning up your waste. That is blackmail. That is what
the current language in the DOD authorizing bill is. It is blackmail.
Now, after my colleagues have seen what ludicrous language that is,
Senator Graham wants to offer an amendment that will not tie up the
funds. But we still remain with the underlying problem, which is the
Department of Energy is trying to reclassify highly radioactive waste
as low-level ancillary waste and say it can be grouted, that is that
cement and sand can be poured on it and somehow, leaving incidental
amount of tank waste is a sufficient way to clean up tanks.
I will continue to fight on this issue until Members understand the
significant policy change that is before this body.
I ask unanimous consent after the remarks of Senator Inhofe that
Senators Murray, Allard, and Hollings be recognized, and that I
immediately be recognized after them.
[[Page S5919]]
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from
Washington has the floor.
Ms. CANTWELL. I want to accommodate the Senator from Nevada. I was
proposing to accommodate and trade off recognition of the four Members
who are present on the floor?
Does the Senator have a question?
Mr. REID. When the Senator yields the floor, I will speak.
Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator from Nevada--I am happy to yield the floor
to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Pardon me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator yielding the floor?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator from Nevada have a question?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the Chair. I have a question on
that statement. The Senator from Washington has a right to speak, but
we are not going to set a long list of speakers here at random, what
speakers are going to speak. I think what we are going to do, we have a
number of speakers on the floor, Senators Inhofe, Hollings, Allard,
Murray--people who have been here for a long period of time.
It appears to me we are not going to have a vote on this in the near
future. I suggest what we do is enter into agreement for the next
several however long it takes. We have people who want to speak. We can
go forward and whoever gets the jump ball, have people be recognized
whenever they get the floor.
Senator Hollings has said Senator Inhofe has been here longer than he
has. Senator Inhofe could be recognized for whatever time he feels
appropriate. I would like to get some idea of what the time should be.
Then, Senator Hollings, I think that would be the best way to go.
But in the meantime, it must be under some agreement, whoever gets
the floor.
Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from Nevada yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator from Washington is happy to entertain a
question that would allow the various Members who are here----
Mr. REID. The Senator from Washington has to understand--she has the
floor, and if she wants to keep talking, let her keep talking. When she
finishes, we will be happy to----
Mr. ALLARD. If the Senator from Washington will yield, I would like
to pose a plan of how we can go through this. I suggest that maybe we
can sit down with leadership and work out some time for debate. I know
Senator Graham on this side of the Senate floor would like to wrap up
this debate. Maybe we can get some time limits to give everybody an
opportunity to speak. I know there is some interest in having some
votes tonight. I believe I need to work with leadership on this side,
if Senator Reid will work with leadership on his side, to determine if
we can work this out. The Senator from Washington can finish, and I can
call on the Senator from Oklahoma. Maybe we can sit down and work out a
time agreement.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield----
Mr. ALLARD. I yield.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
Let me say this: Everyone should understand that there is not going
to be a vote on this amendment tonight. Everyone should understand
that. There is going to be no vote on the pending amendment tonight. I
told people that 5 hours ago. No one believed me. There is not going to
be a vote on the Graham amendment tonight.
Mr. ALLARD. Nobody is calling for a vote on this amendment tonight,
but there might be other votes.
Mr. REID. We will not agree to set this one side. If the Senator from
South Carolina wishes to withdraw his amendment and set some orderly
procedure to take it up when we get back after the Memorial Day break,
we are in agreement. But we are not going to agree to set this aside to
go to another amendment.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this Senator is happy to yield the floor
to my colleague to discuss this issue. I want to make it clear that
after 30 years of standard policy, they are not willing to just have a
few hours of debate and then vote on this significant a change. The
underlying Graham amendment does not fix the underlying DOD committee-
passed authorization language that allows the Department of Energy to
reclassify waste.
That is the key issue at hand. We do not want to leave this bill with
this reclassification of highly radioactive waste to an amendment on
spent fuel storage tanks to then be grouted over. We need to have the
attention of this body, my colleagues who are members of the various
committees I mentioned and my colleagues from those States directly
affected, although I said it is a policy everybody should be
discussing, and the public needs to have an idea and an opportunity to
understand that this is a major policy proposal which is being proposed
in this underlying bill.
I would have preferred that the Graham amendment not be brought up
today, not to this particular issue of the DOD bill being discussed. We
are still talking. We hoped we might able to work something out and
save our colleagues the time and attention of studying a nuclear waste
policy proposal and what level of radioactivity could be sufficiently
removed from tanks and what couldn't be. But if my colleagues want to
continue to pursue the subject, we are going to continue to pursue and
discuss this issue.
With that, I know various Members of both sides of the aisle are
waiting, and I will have more to say on this subject as we continue to
debate the DOD authorizing bill and continue to debate whether the
Graham amendment is sufficient in disposing of the problem that has now
been created in the underlying bill in overriding 30 years of law and
science about how this country should clean up nuclear waste. I don't
believe anybody in America wants to do it on the cheap. We need to give
the American public the certainty that this body will not propose major
policy changes without hearings, without debate, without committees of
jurisdiction having oversight of this policy proposal that is in the
Defense authorization bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, we are trying to work out, subject to the
approval of the majority leader, to allow Senator Inhofe to speak for
15 minutes and Senator Hollings for 45 minutes. They have waited a long
time. Senator Allard, being the gentleman he is, did want to talk about
the subsequent votes; there are a couple of judges who need votes. We
have 25 to do before the end of June, so we have a lot of voting to do.
Then, of course, everyone should understand that we will be right back
on the Defense bill following those votes.
We appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Oklahoma for being
patient and the Senator from South Carolina. The order has not been
entered, but that is what we will order. It would be appropriate for
the Senator from Oklahoma to start his speech.
Members should understand that we will have a couple of votes around
5:30.
Mr. ALLARD. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask the manager if I could have 20 minutes, but I will
probably not take that long. I am saving the best for last and I don't
want to miss it.
Mr. ALLARD. I amend that and ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Oklahoma be allowed to speak for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will clarify a couple of things that
were said by the distinguished Senator from Washington that I am sure
she believes are true but need to be elaborated upon. First,
characterizing the consideration of going back to the old policy as
something that happened in the middle of the night, something that
happened in the dark, something that
[[Page S5920]]
happened in a less than honest way is not at all accurate.
I suggest two things. First, I chaired the Subcommittee on Clean Air,
Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety of the Environment and
Public Works Committee in 1998 and 1999. During that time, of course,
we had jurisdiction over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. During that
time, they had countless hearings. They had comment periods. They
talked about this out in the open, with people given an opportunity to
be heard. I happened to be chairing the committee that had oversight at
the time. I remember that very well.
Second, I suggest this was discussed in the Senate Armed Services
Committee. It certainly was not something that was done in any way that
was less than totally honest and totally done in the daylight. By
suggesting that Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Jack Reed and the
other Members on this side of the issue did something that was not out
in the open, I don't think is quite fair.
We had a hearing this morning with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
It is an oversight hearing we have had ever since 1998. That is when,
in the NRC, I believe we saw a major change. They have done a good job.
The NRC says we should manage waste based on the risk it poses, not how
it is defined.
The Department of Energy was attempting to pursue this very policy
when it was stopped in its tracks. What stopped it? Several of my
colleagues already mentioned a lawsuit was brought against the DOE by
the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is the allegedly charitable
organization that uses a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars in the
form of discretionary grants to achieve its goals.
Three weeks ago I spoke in the Senate about the spurious and
misleading advertisement run by the NRDC. This organization places a
higher priority on imposing ridiculously stringent environmental
standards than on essential elements of national security. They have
proven this many times in the past by filing lawsuits to limit the Navy
readiness exercises and otherwise hampering our military. Now the NRDC
has hamstrung the Department of Energy in the faithful execution of its
responsibilities.
This amendment allows the DOE to pursue the best plan to dispose of
this nuclear material. That plan saves our taxpayers money. It shortens
the amount of time the waste remains in the tanks. It is a safe way to
do it. It is a well-thought-out way of doing it and one that has been
the subject of a lot of daylight. It is merely going back to a policy
that has worked for a long period of time.
We know the background. Sometimes it is necessary to repeat it.
During the cold war, the national security of the United States
necessitated the building of nuclear weapons. Now, 50 years later, we
are faced with the legacy of this effort and the need to clean up the
sites where there is waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
The creation of this waste was a necessary result of the chemical
processes needed to make defense nuclear material. We all understand
that.
Last summer, this very important cleanup effort, which is the single
largest ongoing environmental risk reduction project for the Department
of Energy, took a crushing blow when the district court issued a ruling
that created significantly illegal uncertainties and enormous problems
for the Department's tank waste cleanup at the Savannah River site, the
West Valley, the Hanford site, and the Idaho National Engineer
Environmental Laboratory. Unless these legal uncertainties are
resolved, the only path the Department of Energy could in theory pursue
that does have the necessary legal certainty would be to involve
sending all the waste in tanks and the tanks themselves to Yucca
Mountain no matter how long or short lived is the radioactivity they
contain.
This dramatic change in course would increase the costs of the
cleanup itself in terms of human lives sevenfold and also delay
completion of simply emptying the tanks and treating the waste there by
four decades, thereby further substantially increasing the risk, as the
NRC pointed out, to the public health and safety during the time period
by leaving the waste in tanks for that much longer. It would also
increase the cost of simply emptying and treating the tank waste,
according to the DOE estimates, by an additional $86 billion, only $1
billion less than last year's supplemental appropriation for the Iraq
war, for approximately a total cost of $138 billion.
We are talking about something really big. The estimates for delay
and the additional costs do not take into account the very complex
logistics of transporting and disposing of all the additional waste at
Yucca Mountain or the complex logistics of preparing for disposal,
transporting, and disposing of the tanks themselves. Keep in mind, it
is not just what is in the tanks. The tanks themselves would have to go
there and be disposed of at the Yucca Mountain facility. These would
also add additional decades and tens, if not hundreds, of billions of
dollars to the cleanup cost.
Furthermore, under this scenario, the number of canisters of waste
that would be transported to Yucca Mountain would increase from 20,000
canisters to approximately 200,000 canisters.
I know there are a lot of members in the Senate concerned about the
transport of waste to Yucca Mountain. That would increase it tenfold.
Some have asked, why not just authorize and appropriate $350 million
needed for the cleanup activities in fiscal year 2005 and force the
Department of Energy to continue its work? This is not a responsible
path. If the Department of Energy constructs the facility necessary to
prepare waste for disposal as low-level or transuranic waste and
prepare the waste for disposal and then finds out after the fact that
it lacked the legal authority to classify the waste in this manner,
hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money would already
have been wasted and years of cleanup work lost. The Department may
have actually made it harder to put the waste in the form needed to
dispose of it at Yucca Mountain.
The fundamental root cause of the dilemma that faces our Nation today
is the ambiguity presented by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's definition
of high-level waste and that, if left unclassified, is producing this
technologically irrational result without environmental benefit that,
in fact, increases health and safety risks.
It is up to this committee and this Congress to resolve ambiguity in
order for the cleanup of the sites which played such a key role in the
national security of our Nation. The language before the Senate
clarifies the ambiguity, and I urge adoption of this language.
What had happened on this, back in the time it was considered in SAS
Committee--the Senate Armed Services Committee--was that it was an
amendment to actually go back and do it as it had been done before, to
do it in the best way, as determined by the multitude of hearings that
were conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and which were
conducted during the time I chaired the oversight committee. So we were
there. We knew it was taking place.
The thing that I guess bothers me the most--I see the ranking
minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Senate
floor. We acted very responsibly. This was not a partisan issue. This
was a bipartisan issue. To infer in any way that things were done in
the dark of night or in any way inappropriately is to say that I and
several others--certainly the chairman of the committee; certainly
Senator Joe Lieberman; certainly Senator Jack Reed, who supported this
effort and supported the Senator from South Carolina--were acting
inappropriately. I do not think that is realistic.
By the way, it has been said several times that there is some doubt
as to what the NRC's position is on this issue. I will read the last
paragraph of a letter that was sent to me, on May 18, as chairman of
the Environment and Public Works Committee. This last paragraph says:
It is our understanding that some opponents of DOE's
proposed plans believe that the tanks and the waste residuals
should be disposed of as high-level waste in a geologic
repository. While either approach could potentially be
implemented within NRC regulatory requirements, we note that
removal of the tanks, packaging of the tanks and residuals
for transport and disposal, and disposal of the waste at a
geologic repository, if feasible, would incur significant
additional worker exposures--
[[Page S5921]]
That is human lives. We are exposing individuals.
and transportation exposures--
The transportation exposures we have talked about on this floor many,
many times--
at very large financial costs.
You might conclude that, at this time, with all the terrorist threats
around, these could become prime targets while being transported. Still
quoting the letter:
Whereas, if DOE's proposed plans meet appropriate criteria,
such as those used in NRC's previous reviews, then the NRC
believes that public health and safety can be maintained
while avoiding unnecessary additional exposures and risks
associated with removal and transport of the waste and
unnecessary additional expenditures of Federal funds.
I hope this letter satisfactorily addresses your questions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter from
the NRC to me dated May 18 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your request of
May 18, 2004, for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
(NRC's) views on waste-incident-to-reprocessing (WIR).
Specifically, you requested NRC's thoughts on: (1) the U.S.
Department of Energy's (DOE's) plan to grout in place the
remaining residues left in the tanks at the Savannah River
Site (SRS), the Hanford site, and the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL); and (2) the
risks to human health and the environment by following DOE's
plan or the Natural Resources Defense Council' (NRDC's) plan.
The concept underlying WIR is that wastes can be managed
based on their risk to human health and the environment,
rather than the origin of the wastes. For wastes that
originate in reprocessing of nuclear fuel, such as the tank
residuals at the DOE sites, some are highly radioactive and
need to be treated and disposed of as high-level radioactive
waste. Others do not pose the same risk to human health and
the environment, and do not need to be disposed of as high-
level waste in order to manage the risks that they pose.
At the outset, it must be understood that the NRC does not
have regulatory authority or jurisdiction over SRS, Hanford,
or INEEL. In the past, DOE has requested NRC review of some
of its WIR determinations and supporting analysis. The NRC
entered into reimbursable agreements to perform these
reviews, which were provided as advice and did not constitute
regulatory approval. NRC performed comprehensive and
independent WIR reviews for Hanford in 1997, SRS in 2000, and
INEEL in 2002 and 2003. These reviews involved both waste
removed from tanks, and waste residuals remaining in the
tanks for grouting and closure. NRC assessed whether DOE's
determinations had sound technical assumptions, analysis, and
conclusions with regard to specific WIR criteria. These
criteria are: (1) the waste has been processed to remove key
radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and
economically practical, and (2) the waste is to be managed so
that safety requirements comparable to the performance
objectives in NRC's regulation 10 CFR Part 61 (Licensing
Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste), Subpart
C, are satisfied. In all cases, the NRC staff found that
DOE's proposed methodology and conclusions met the
appropriate WIR criteria and therefore met the performance
objectives and dose limits that would apply to near-surface
low-level waste disposal and would protect public health and
safety. It should be noted that the Commission did not review
all of DOE's actions with regard to WIR at those sites, and
that the NRC conclusions applied only to those actions that
the NRC reviewed. It should be noted that the Commission in
its ``Decommissioning Criteria for the West Valley
Demonstration Project (M-32) at the West Valley Site; Final
Policy Statement'' (67 FR 5003, February 1, 2002),
established WIR criteria for that site identical to those
used in our reviews of the three DOE sites.
It is our understanding that some opponents of DOE's
proposed plans believe that the tanks and the waste residuals
should be disposed of as high-level waste in a geologic
repository. While either approach could potentially be
implemented within NRC regulatory requirements, we note that
removal of the tanks, packaging of the tanks and residuals
for transport and disposal, and disposal of the waste at a
geologic repository, if feasible, would incur significant
additional worker exposures and transportation exposures at
very large financial costs. Whereas, if DOE's proposed plans
meet appropriate criteria, such as those used in NRC's
previous reviews, then the NRC believes that public health
and safety can be maintained while avoiding unnecessary
additional exposures and risks associated with removal and
transport of the waste and unnecessary additional
expenditures of Federal funds.
I hope this letter satisfactorily addresses your questions.
Sincerely,
Nils J. Diaz.
Mr. INHOFE. We have a lot of commissions and a lot of organizations
in the committee that I chair. We have some 17 Departments for which we
have oversight and we deal with on a daily basis. When the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission was originally formed, it was to have the
expertise and the knowledge as to what is going to assure the most
safety for the public in the cheapest way you can get things done. They
have done a good job. We have a lot of organizations such as this
throughout Government. We have CASAC, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee. We look to them because they have expertise. We look to the
NRC because they have expertise.
I do not want to imply that any of the Members here would have
necessarily less expertise than the NRC, but I suspect that is the
case. So we rely on that expertise. Here we have the Department of
Energy with all of its experts saying: This is the safe way to do it.
This is the cheapest way to do it. And we have the NRC, which is
charged with the responsibility of public safety, saying: This is the
best way to do it.
So I believe, when the time comes, we need to look at this rationally
and not try to make disparaging remarks about some of the members of
the Armed Services Committee in our consideration of this amendment.
Keep in mind, this was years in the making. Six years ago we started
hearings on how to properly dispose of this, and the conclusions they
came to were unanimous.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, are we in a position now
to do anything on this request we had?
Mr. ALLARD. No. We are still hearing. Senator Inhofe has finished his
statement. I would suggest we recognize the Senator from South Carolina
for 40 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is
recognized--
Mr. REID. No. The Senator is recognized for whatever time he wants.
He has the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from South Carolina.
Setting The Record Straight
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues. I
have, this afternoon, the opportunity to respond to being charged as
anti-Semitic when I proclaimed the policy of President Bush in the
Mideast as not for Iraq or really for democracy in the sense that he is
worried about Saddam and democracy. If he were worried about democracy
in the Mideast, as we wanted to spread it as a policy, we would have
invaded Lebanon, which is half a democracy and has terrorism and
terrorists who have been problems to the interests of Israel and the
United States.
It is very interesting that on page 231, Richard Clarke, in his book
``Against All Enemies,'' cites the fact that there had not been any
terrorism, any evidence or intelligence of Saddam's terrorism against
the United States from 1993 to 2003. He says that in the presence of
Paul Wolfowitz. He says that in the presence of John McLaughlin of the
CIA. In fact, he says: Isn't that right, John? And John says: That is
exactly right.
The reason was when they made the attempt on President Bush, Senior,
back in 1993, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on Saddam in
downtown Baghdad, the intelligence headquarters, and it went right
straight down the middle of the headquarters. It was after hours so not
a big kill--but Saddam got the message: You monkey around with the
United States, a missile will land on your head.
So, in essence, the equation had changed in the Saddam-Iraq/Mideast
concerns whereby Saddam was more worried about any threat of the United
States against him than the United States was worried about a threat by
Saddam against us.
I want to read an article that appeared in the Post and Courier in
Charleston on May 6; thereafter, I think in the State newspaper in
Columbia a couple days later; and in the Greenville News--all three
major newspapers in South Carolina. You will find
[[Page S5922]]
that there is no anti-Semitic reference whatsoever in it.
The reason I emphasize that upfront is for the simple reason that you
cannot put an op-ed in my hometown paper that is anti-Semitic. We have
a very, very proud Jewish community in Charleston. In fact, it is where
reform Judaism began. The earliest temple, Kadosh Beth Elohim, is on
Hasell Street. I have spoken there several times. I had the pleasure of
having that particular temple put on the National Register. This
particular Senator, with over 50 years now of public service, has
received a strong Jewish vote.
Let me emphasize another thing because the papers are piling on and
bringing up again a little difference of opinion I had on the Senate
floor with Senator Metzenbaum. It was not really a difference. What had
happened was we were discussing a matter, and we referred to each's
religion in order to make sure there would not be any misunderstanding
or tempers flaring. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr.
Helms, referred to himself as the Baptist lay leader, Senator Danforth
as the Episcopal priest. I referred to myself as the Lutheran Senator.
And when Senator Metzenbaum came on the floor, I referred to him as the
Senator from B'nai B'rith, and he took exception. He thought it was an
aspersion. I told him: Wait a minute, I will gladly identify myself as
the Senator from B'nai B'rith. I did not mean to hurt his feelings. I
apologized at that time but not for the legitimacy and the
circumstances of the particular reference.
Now here we go again, some years later. The Senator from Virginia,
Mr. George Allen, and I are good friends. Maybe after this particular
thing he might feel different, but I know his role as the chairman of
the campaign committee. And so I have an article here where Senator
Allen denounces Senator Hollings' latest political attack, Senator
Hollings' antisemitic, political conspiracy statement. Let me read the
statement here from the May 6 Post and Courier, and you be the judge:
With 760 dead in Iraq, over 3,000 maimed for life--home
folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq--and how to get
out.
Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President
Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with
9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating
on September 11 . . . the State Department did not list Iraq.
They listed 45 countries and at that particular date on September 11,
2001, they did not even list Iraq.
Richard Clarke, in ``Against All Enemies,'' tells how the
United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10
years from Saddam at the time of our invasion.
On page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President
Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of
President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on
Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big
kill, but Saddam got the message--monkey around with the
United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course
there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's
intelligence Mossad knows what's going on in Iraq. They are
the best. They have to know.
Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since
would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction . . .
Let me divert for a second there. I was here when Israel attacked the
nuclear facility in Baghdad during the 1980s. In all candor, when
President Bush, on October 7, 2002, said, after all that buildup by
Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and everybody else, that facing clear
evidence of peril, we cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom
cloud, I thought we were attacking for Israel. I thought that they knew
about some kind of nuclear development there. And rather than getting
them in further trouble with the United Nations and the Arab world,
that its best friend, the United States, would knock it out for them.
That is why I voted for it. I got misled. Our attack on Iraq, the
invasion of Iraq is a bad mistake. I will get into that later. But let
me read even further:
. . . if there were any [weapons of mass destruction] or if
they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a
sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to
secure Israel.
Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer,
for years there had been a domino school of thought that the
way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in
the area. Wolfowitz wrote: ``The United States may not be
able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but
where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt,
American power may be the only way to open it up.''
Namely, invasion. That is Wolfowitz talking.
And on another occasion: Iraq as ``the first Arab democracy
. . . would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and
Iran but across the whole Arab world.'' Three weeks before
the invasion, President Bush stated: ``A new regime in Iraq
would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom
for other nations in the region.''
I referred to those three gentlemen because I know them well. They
are brilliant. I have been for years associated one way or the other
with each of them. I read Charles Krauthammer. I wish I could write
like he can. With respect to Richard Perle, he was sort of our
authority in the cold war, best friend of Scoop Jackson. That is how I
met him 38 years ago almost. I followed him and I followed his advice,
and that is in large measure how we prevailed in the cold war. So I
have the highest respect for Richard Perle.
And, of course, the other gentleman, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Wolfowitz,
I met him out in Indonesia when he was Ambassador. He came back. We
were good friends. He was looking around for a position, and I know I
offered him one--in fact, we might go to the records and find
temporarily he might have been on my payroll for a few weeks. But I
have always had the highest regard for Paul Wolfowitz.
That is why I referred to him. I had their sayings and everything
else. But let me go, diverting for a minute, right to the Project For
The New American Century. I have a letter that was written on May 29,
1998, to Newt Gingrich, the Speaker, Trent Lott, the Senate majority
leader. These are the gentlemen who said this:
We would use U.S. and allied military power to provide
protection for liberating areas in northern and southern
Iraq, and we should establish and maintain a strong U.S.
military presence in the region and be prepared to use that
force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf and, if
necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.
And that is signed by--and I want everybody to remember these names--
Elliot Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John R. Bolton,
Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad,
William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William
Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert B.
Zoellick. There is a studied school of thought of the best way to
secure Israel. We have been going for years back and forth with every
particular administration, you can see where we are now.
But in any event, the better way to do it is go right in and
establish our predominance in Iraq and then, as they say, and I have
different articles here I could refer to, next is Iran and then Syria.
And it is the domino theory, and they genuinely believe it. I differ. I
think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid
of. That is my Israel policy. You can't have an Israel policy other
than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in
the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to
time, to give the poor President a chance.
I can tell you no President takes office--I don't care whether it is
a Republican or a Democrat--that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him
exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress ought
to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in most of
them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy. I
have stated it categorically.
The way to really get peace is not militarily. You cannot kill an
idea militarily. I was delighted the other day when General Myers
appeared before our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and he said
that we will not win militarily in Iraq. He didn't say we are going to
get defeated militarily but that you can't win militarily in Iraq.
Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Not until I complete this thought. Time is running out
on me.
The papers are the ones that pointed out Wolfowitz, Pearle, and
Charles Krauthammer were of the Jewish faith. They are the ones who
brought all this Semitism in there. I can tell you that right now, I
didn't have that in mind. I had my friends in mind and I followed them.
We had this in the late 1990s
[[Page S5923]]
under President Clinton, when we passed a resolution that we ought to
have Saddam removed from power, have a regime change. I was wondering
how it went. I had to find my old file--on this Project For The New
American Century.
Now, going back to my article: ``every President since 1947 has made
a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has
surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement.
President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He
came to office imbued with one thought.''
Mr. ALLARD. I wonder if the Senator will yield, preserving his time,
for a unanimous consent request to move forward with the judge vote we
have at 5:40.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Without losing my right to the floor, I will yield.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that at 5:30 today the Senate proceed to executive session to
consider the following nominations en bloc on today's Executive
Calendar: No. 556, the nomination of Raymond Gruender to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit; and Calendar No. 557, the
nomination of Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for
the Third Circuit.
I further ask unanimous consent that following 10 minutes of debate,
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, or their designees, that the Senate proceed to
consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations, with no
further intervening action or debate; further, that following the vote,
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the
Senate then return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator modify his request so
that the statement of the Senator from South Carolina will stop at
5:40, and the rest of the unanimous consent kick in at 5:40, rather
than 5:30, so we will be voting at 5:50.
Mr. ALLARD. I am willing to modify it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me again read from my article:
President Bush came to office imbued with one thought: reelection.
I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We
have had support of all eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the
President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled. There weren't any
weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we went to
war. He had one thought in mind, and that was reelection. I say that
about President Bush. He is a delightful fella, a wonderful campaigner,
but he loves campaigning. You cannot get him in the White House or
catch him there, hardly. He doesn't work on these problems at all.
I have worked with all of the Presidents. I know the leadership goes
to the White House and tries to work with him. He is interested in one
thing, and that is to be out campaigning. So he had one thought in
mind, and that was reelection.
Again, let me read: Bush thought tax cuts would hold his crowd
together and that spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel
would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats.
Is there anything wrong with referring to the Jewish vote? Good gosh,
every 1 of us of the 100, with pollsters and all, refer to the Jewish
vote. That is not anti-Semitic. It is appreciating them. We campaigned
for it.
I just read about President Bush's appearance before the AIPAC. He
confirmed his support of the Jewish vote, referring to adopting Ariel
Sharon's policy, and the dickens with the 1967 borders, the heck with
negotiating the return of refugees, the heck with the settlements he
had objected to originally. They had those borders, Resolution No.
242--no, no, President Bush said: I am going along with Sharon, and he
was going to get that and he got the wonderful reception he got with
the Jewish vote. There is nothing like politicizing or a conspiracy, as
my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, says--that it is an anti-
Semitic, political, conspiracy statement.
That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep
it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any 1 of
the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what
this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of The
Project For The New American Century.
Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel. If
we can get in there and take it in 7 days, as Paul Wolfowitz says, then
we would get rid of Saddam, and when we got rid of Saddam, now all they
can do is fall back and say: Aren't you getting rid of Saddam?
Let me get to that point. What happens is, they say he is a monster.
We continued to give him aid after he gassed his own people and
everything else of that kind. George Herbert Walker Bush said in his
book All The Best in 1999, never commit American GIs into an unwinnable
urban guerrilla war and lose the support of the Arab world, lose their
friendship and support. That is a general rephrasing of it.
The point is, my authority is the President's daddy. I want everybody
to know that. I don't apologize for this column. I want them to
apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism. They are not getting
by with it. I will come down here every day--I have nothing else to
do--and we will talk about it and find out what the policy is.
Let me go back to this particular column:
But George Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to
invade Iraq days before the Inauguration.
There is no question, he got a briefing. That was the first thing he
wanted out of former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. Then the nominee,
about to take the oath of office as President of the United States,
wanted to be briefed on Iraq. They had this policy in mind coming to
town. Mr. President, 9/11 had nothing to do with it, and we all know it
now. We have to understand it because that is the only way really to
help Israel and get us out of the soup. Everybody is worrying about
Iraq. We better worry about Israel because we certainly have put her in
terrible jeopardy with this particular initiative.
Without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks President
Bush had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was
determined. President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy.
Wolfowitz said it would take only 7 days. Vice President
Cheney believed that we would be greeted as liberators, but
Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of de-Baathification of
Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni
leaders who soon joined with the insurgents.
Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops.
In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16 million,
General William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops,
was still asking for more troops. In Iraq, with a population
of 25 million, General John Abizaid, with only 135,000
troops, can barely secure the troops, much less the country.
If the troops are there to fight, there are too few. If they
are there to die, there are too many. To secure Iraq we need
more troops, at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the
United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure.
Once back, the French, Germans, and others will join with the
U.N. to take over.
With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone
awry, he can't keep shouting ``Terrorism war.'' Terrorism is
a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean war, with the
charge of the light brigade, the cavalry war, or World War II
the blitzkrieg war. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland,
there is terrorism in India, and in Pakistan. In the Mideast,
terrorism is a separate problem, to be defeated by diplomacy
and negotiation, not militarily.
Here, might does not make right. Right makes might. Acting
militarily we have created more terrorism than we have
eliminated.
The title of this article is ``Bush's failed Mideast policy is
creating more terrorism, `` and, I could add, jeopardizing the security
of Israel.
They say: He talks like a big fan of Israel. I am. I have a 38-year
track record. I will never forget some 34 years ago meeting with David
Ben-Gurion. He talked about little Israel, less than 3 million at that
time in a sea of 100 million.
Let's say Israel has 5 million people there now, but there are 150
million Muslims surrounding it. If you punch the particular buzzer I
did with Yitzhak Rabin 1 day down on the Negev to scramble the air
force, I think it was 21 seconds they were up in the air, and
[[Page S5924]]
in a minute's time, they were outside over Jordan.
Militarily, Israel is a veritable aircraft carrier. You can hardly
fly and you are out of the country, and everybody has to understand
that. You cannot play the numbers game Sharon plays. He thinks he can
do it militarily.
I want to remind you, it was in that 6-day war--the book is ``Six
Days of War'' by Michael Oren. Look on page 151, and Major Ariel Sharon
says: Look, we are going to decimate the Egyptian army and you will not
hear from Egypt again for several generations. And Levi Eshkol, the
Prime Minister, on page 152 says: ``Militarily victory decides nothing.
The Arabs will still be here.''
That is my theme. I have watched it over the years. You have to learn
not to kill together, but to live together. The finest piece I ever
read was right in this morning's paper. There is still hope. I refer to
an article: ``Israeli Arabs Exalting in a Rare Triumph.''
There are a million Israeli Arabs. They won a soccer match in Tel
Aviv. The majority of the team was of Israeli heritage, and they held
an Israeli flag, if you can imagine that in the political United States
of America. They are living together. Every Prime Minister since David
Ben-Gurion has realized that fact: that they have to learn to live
together. They all moved, and they almost had it under Ehud Barak and
President Clinton. Arafat proved he did not want peace. He did not
accept it. That was our one chance.
Unfortunately, rather than working on that one chance and continuing,
Ariel Sharon went in their face at Temple Mount, the intifada started,
and he has been killing 10 to 1. He plays the numbers game, almost like
we had in Vietnam. He thinks he can eliminate by moving the ball some,
getting some more settlements, bulldozing a house, but he is creating
terrorism.
I had a headline the other day. When I saw it, I showed it to my
staff. I said: You all come in here, I want to ask you something.
``Israel plans to destroy more Gaza dwellings.'' You see that headline?
I asked staff members: Suppose they bulldoze your daddy's home.
Wouldn't you want to cut their throat?
They said: In a New York minute.
How do you create terrorists? Where is the front line in the so-
called war on terrorism? I learned the answer recently on a trip I was
on with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We talked for over an
hour with the King of Jordan. He finally cautioned at the very end,
when we stood up, he said: You have to settle this Israel-Palestine
question. That is the only way to get on top of this. We went over to
Kuwait to the Prime Minister when he got through, he said: You have to
settle the Israel-Palestine situation.
I will quote Mr. Musharraf, the President of Pakistan. When we got
there, he cautioned if you can settle the Israel-Palestine question,
terrorism will disappear around the world.
Then we came in on a Friday evening to make a little courtesy call
with the French. The distinguished Senator from Virginia with
Lafayette--and I have slept in Lafayette's bed over there in Richmond,
VA, and I helped with that particular thing because I believe and
remember the French help. I will never forget--everybody is going to
the 60th anniversary of D-Day, but I was at the 50th anniversary and we
went over to Ste-Mere-Eglise, where a major, who was a Citadel
graduate, had broken through the line and saved us from having to leave
the beachhead and go back to England. They made a movie of it. A shell
burst killed him. They laid him down on their side. He is buried on the
side of the chapel.
We went to the services. We had talks there. This little old lady
came. She was about 80 years old, walking with a cane. I was listening
to the mayor, and she pulled my jacket and she said: Thank you, Yank.
If you had not come we would be goose-stepping.
I turned to her and I said, thank you, madam, because if you had not
come, we would still be a colony.
The majority of the troops on the field at Yorktown with the
surrender of Cornwallis were French troops. We had French troops that
helped us get this so-called freedom. All this anti-French stuff, do
not give me french fries and everything else, is crazy.
I was proud to appear with the Senator from Virginia. But Chirac, he
said, look, we have to have western solidarity. We have to work
together now and we have to watch this competition from China in the
Far East, and we in the western world have to stick together. He said
he wanted to help in Iraq, but he needed a U.N. resolution to cover. He
said what we have to do is do something about Israel and Palestine.
I said, what would you do?
He said, I would put a peacekeeping force.
I said, would French troops come?
He said, French troops would come immediately. We would be part of it
and we would separate them from killing each other every day.
My position is, and I believe in this particular policy as strongly
as I know how, might does not make right, but right makes might. We
have lost our evenhanded posture and reputation in the Mideast. We are
in worse off shape with Israel, our principal interest in the gulf.
Sharon has not helped us at all. We see him going back and forth.
They say, oh, no, it is negotiation. But we are throwing over the
United States-Israel policy of some 35 years insofar as negotiating the
settlements and the refugees. We are saying forget about all of that,
let Sharon keep bulldozing them. Now in the morning paper on the front
page one sees the killing of children, they are saying, we are
defending Israel. That is the U.S. policy. That is not just Israel's
policy.
They are coming in there with U.S. equipment, U.S. gun helicopters,
U.S. tanks that are bulldozing. That is our policy. That is the reason
for 9/11 and Osama. He said, I do not like American troops in Saudi
Arabia, get the infidel out. That is why they went right into that
thing. Where do you think we get all this talk about hate America? I do
not buy that stuff. I have traveled the world. They love Americans.
Recently we met with the Ambassadors of Germany and France, and
Britain in our policy committee and they said the young people are
disillusioned. They always look to the United States for the moral
position and taking and defending that particular position. They do not
look there anymore.
We are losing the terrorism war because we thought we could do it
militarily under the domino policy of President Bush, going into Iraq.
That is my point. That is not anti-Semite or whatever they say in here
about people's faith and ethnicity. I never referred to any faith. I
should have added those other names from the Project For The New
American Century, but I picked out the names I had quotes for. And for
space, I left other things out.
Mr. President, on May 12 of this year, I had printed in the Record
the article in its entirety.
I diverted from the reading of the article several times, so for the
sake of accuracy I wanted the whole article printed.
This particular op-ed piece appeared in the Post and Courier. Never
would they have thought, having read it, if it was anti-Semitic, that
they would have ever put it in there. Nor would the Knight Ridder
newspapers in Columbia, SC. Nor would the Metro Media newspapers in
Greenville, SC. But the Anti-Defamation League picked it up and now
they have given it to my good friend, Senator Allen of Virginia. I have
his particular admonition how I am anti-Semitic and I cannot let that
stay there.
My staff knew I was coming over and waiting my turn in order to talk
under the Pastore rule. I know I am as vitally interested as anybody
can be about this issue. Our distinguished colleague from Washington,
Senator Cantwell, knows this subject backward and forward.
The reason I had not known or gotten all fired up is I have been
doing some other work and South Carolina has already looked to me for
everything at that Savannah River plant. I am on the Energy
Appropriations Subcommittee and we have gotten all the money--do not
worry about money. This is a policy of nuclear waste disposal, high-
level waste, being reclassified under an end-around-end deal of trying
to make it low-level waste and, as Senator Cantwell says, pouring in
some sand and concrete on top of it. The scientists say, watch out, the
remains in these tanks are 50 percent as deadly and dangerous as the
entire tank container.
[[Page S5925]]
Back to Saddam, everybody is glad we have gotten rid of Saddam, but
we can see what has happened. There is an old saying we learned in
World War II that no matter how well the gun is aimed, if the recoil is
going to kill the gun crew, you do not fire.
Did this White House and administration ever think of the recoil? It
severely injured the gun crew. Yes, ordinarily to get rid of Saddam,
like they put a missile on the intelligence head, they could have put a
missile on him any time they wanted, but they did not want to do that.
They wanted the domino policy to ensue.
No, no, getting rid of Saddam was not worth almost 800 dead GIs and
over 3,500 maimed for life. Some say every time we want to criticize
the policy, we are weakening the GIs. I am strengthening the GIs. I
said let's get enough in there so they can secure themselves. We have
135,000 now. A third of those are guarding the other third, and that
means leaving a third, 35,000 or 40,000 troops, running out like a fire
drill to any particular trouble and coming back in and eating. I have
been there.
You can see it in Rafah. They are building a big old thing like in
Kosovo, where we hunker down and act like we are in charge of Kosovo.
The Albanians are in charge of Kosovo.
You can't force-feed democracy. It has to come from within. We helped
liberate Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, 60-some years ago, and Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia have not opted for democracy, nor has Libya, nor has
Egypt, nor has Lebanon, nor has Syria, nor has Iraq, nor has Iran, nor
has Afghanistan, nor has Pakistan, nor has Jordan, nor has Yemen, nor
has Aden, nor has Saudi Arabia, nor has the organization of Arab
states.
Come on. So we have to go out and not speak sense with respect to
policy, and when you want to talk about policy, they say it is anti-
Semitic. Well, come on the floor, let's debate it. Because my friend
from Virginia admonishes me. Referring to me he says, ``I suggest he
should learn from history before making accusations.'' I didn't make
any accusations. I stated facts. That is their policy. That is not my
policy.
Mind you me, when we went into Iraq, the only people in the world who
favored that policy were the people of the United States and the people
of Israel. The people of Jordan, Iraq, Britain, Spain, Poland, Italy,
Japan, everywhere around the world said you just don't invade a
sovereign country no matter how bad the rascal is. We have Kim Jong of
North Korea--he has weapons of mass destruction, but we don't do
anything there.
Don't give me this about how we saved this and we did this or did
that. We have to sort of learn that the front line now is not the
Pentagon but the State Department. We have to work through diplomacy.
We live in a global economy and a global world. That is only going to
come about economically, politically, diplomatically, and by
negotiations.
The United States, until this invasion and this domino policy for
Israel--don't tell me it is otherwise, about spreading democracy. They
know what they are talking about. They are insisting on it. It is not a
Jewish policy or a Semite policy. It is their domino policy. That is
exactly what it is. But they know how to make you tuck tail and run.
Not the Senator from South Carolina. We don't run, we don't win, we are
not right, we are wrong a lot of times, but I have thought this out as
thoroughly as I know how, and it worries me that here we are.
I said after we got into that thing in Vietnam with the Gulf of
Tonkin--I came there at that particular time, in 1966, went to Vietnam
when we were under fire three times--actually over into Cambodia before
and that kind of thing. We finally came up with McNamara writing a book
saying he was wrong.
I'll never forget, McNamara comes out to Allie Richenberg near Saint
Albans to get his tennis lesson at 7 o'clock, and Bob Mcnamara turned
to Allie and said, ``Allie, what do you think about my book?'' He said,
``It's as bad as your backhand. You should not have written it.''
But we had to wait 20 years for that one, and we killed 58,000
Americans. Now we have killed almost 800, maimed for life thousands of
others. Are we going to just continue on?
What would the Senator from South Carolina do if I were king for a
day? Yes, I would put the troops in to get security, and I would step
up the election. I can tell you right now, I have run for all kind
of offices, 20-some statewide offices and campaigns. But don't put me
in on that temporary coalition. That fellow, El Baradei, who is running
around the United Nations to get a temporary coalition or government to
turn power over to on June 30--don't put me in that. I immediately have
to repudiate the United States, that I am not a stooge for the United
States. We just have our fingers crossed that we can hold law and order
so we can have an election. But don't wait until 2005, or December; by
September 30, let's get that election going.
Let's realize we are in real trouble. Saudi Arabia is in trouble.
Israel is in trouble. The United States is in trouble. I am going to
state what I believe to be the fact. In fact, I believe it very
strongly. They just are whistling by on account of the pressures that
we get politically. Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going
on.
It was a mistake like Vietnam. We got misled with the Gulf of Tonkin,
we got misled here, and we are in that quagmire. ``Municipal guerrilla
war and a quagmire,'' that says George Herbert Walker Bush. I will end
on my authority--President George Herbert Walker Bush said:
Never commit U.S. troops into an unwinnable urban guerrilla
war and turn off the Arab world.
Look in that book of his and you will see exactly what I am talking
about. He is not anti-Semitic. He is sensible. He didn't go in.
Yes, Colin Powell, General Powell said if you are going in, let's
have enough troops. They tried to do it on the cheap. They were ill
advised. My friend Paul Wolfowitz said you will do it in 7 days. Come
on. And they let the Republican Guard back into the city of Baghdad and
into the Sunni triangle, and the next thing you know, when Chalabi, who
has now been demoted or set aside--he did away with their leadership
and everything, so they got turned off and they buddied up with the
insurgents, and now we have hell on our hands. Everybody knows that.
So it has been ill prepared, ill advised, and ill administered. The
entire thing is a mess. Don't give me ``support the troops, support the
troops.'' I have been with troops, about 3 years in combat, so don't
tell me about troops. I have always supported the troops.
You ask how many Senators have gotten a Woodward Award from the U.S.
Army. They don't give that out lightly. I have been with every
Secretary of Defense until this one, and I think he is brilliant, but I
think he has made a mistake going along with this domino policy. We
have it now out on the table, and we will all talk about it, and we
will be around and ready to debate it.
I appreciate the colleagues yielding to me. I wish I had all the time
to put all these articles in.
I want to thank--and I am going to sit here and support my friend
from Washington. She has done a magnificent job stating what the issue
is.
It is simply under the auspices of an accelerated disposal plan going
around end to reclassify--and it is around end. I had not heard
anything about it. I have been handling everything at Savannah River
for 30 some years. I called up the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control--DHEC--and they were adamantly opposed and
gave me the brief they signed a few weeks ago adamantly opposing it,
with the assistant attorney general's name on it. They say this is DHEC
policy. I talked to two members of DHEC and they said it was never
brought up at their meetings. They do not know anything about it.
So, yes, it is a little rider for one special State that is injurious
not only to the State itself--I say that advisedly--but also to the
United States.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S5926]]
____________________