[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11460-11487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2400 which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2400) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2005 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Services, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Graham of South Carolina amendment No. 3170, to provide for 
     the treatment by the Department of Energy of waste material.
       Crapo amendment No. 3226 (to amendment No. 3170), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding, under the order that is before the 
Senate, the first order of business would be two voice votes on two 
amendments pending. Is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two amendments were to be disposed of.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could take a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. In our conversations before the Senate was called back into 
session, the Senator from Idaho indicated he would like to speak for 5 
minutes prior to those two voice votes and that time would be credited 
against the 2 hours the majority has on the underlying Cantwell 
amendment. I understand he is going to make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 
minutes taken out of our side of the time that is allocated during this 
morning's debate to discuss an issue and make a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could be heard, reserving the right to 
object, it is my further understanding this would have no bearing on 
our voting in 5 minutes on the two amendments. Is that right?
  Mr. CRAPO. That is correct, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that it 
be made in order that I be allowed to amend my amendment in the form of 
amendments that are at the desk at this time. The purpose of this 
request is that there has been some question raised in regard to the 
South Carolina language, as to whether it creates any precedential 
value in regard to other States which are dealing with radioactive 
materials and the handling of them. We do not believe there is such a 
precedential effect and we believe it is very clear there is not, but 
because some have raised that question, we would like to simply amend 
the legislation that is before us today to make it perfectly clear 
there is no precedential effect of this language on any State other 
than South Carolina.
  For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to amend 
my own amendment, which is at the desk, in the form of an amendment 
which we have presented to the other side.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. I ask for regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Has the 5 minutes been used that the Senator requested for 
debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an objection to the Senator's 5-
minute request.
  Mr. REID. Regular order.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask to speak for up to 2 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3226.
  The amendment (No. 3226) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3170, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 3170) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. It is now my understanding the Cantwell amendment will be 
reported. It has not been reported yet, is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington, Ms. Cantwell, is recognized to offer her amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3261

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for herself, 
     Mr. Hollings, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3261.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To ensure adequate funding for, and the continuation of 
  activities related to, the treatment by the Department of Energy of 
                     high level radioactive waste)

       Beginning on page 384, strike line 3 and all that follows 
     through page 391, line 7, and insert the following:

     SEC. 3117. ANNUAL REPORT ON EXPENDITURES FOR SAFEGUARDS AND 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Annual Report Required.--Subtitle C of title XLVII of 
     the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2771 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 4732. ANNUAL REPORT ON EXPENDITURES FOR SAFEGUARDS AND 
                   SECURITY.

       ``The Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress each 
     year, in the budget justification materials submitted to 
     Congress in support of the budget of the President for the 
     fiscal year beginning in such year (as submitted under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code), the 
     following:
       ``(1) A detailed description and accounting of the proposed 
     obligations and expenditures by the Department of Energy for 
     safeguards and security in carrying out programs necessary 
     for the national security for the fiscal year covered by such 
     budget, including any technologies on safeguards and security 
     proposed to be deployed or implemented during such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(2) With respect to the fiscal year ending in the year 
     before the year in which such budget is submitted, a detailed 
     description and accounting of--
       ``(A) the policy on safeguards and security, including any 
     modifications in such policy adopted or implemented during 
     such fiscal year;
       ``(B) any initiatives on safeguards and security in effect 
     or implemented during such fiscal year;

[[Page 11461]]

       ``(C) the amount obligated and expended for safeguards and 
     security during such fiscal year, set forth by total amount, 
     by amount per program, and by amount per facility; and
       ``(D) the technologies on safeguards and security deployed 
     or implemented during such fiscal year.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for that Act 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     4731 the following new item:

``Sec. 4732. Annual report on expenditures for safeguards and 
              security.''.

     SEC. 3118. AUTHORITY TO CONSOLIDATE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
                   OFFICES OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NATIONAL 
                   NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION WITHIN NATIONAL 
                   NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of Energy may consolidate the 
     counterintelligence programs and functions referred to in 
     subsection (b) within the Office of Defense Nuclear 
     Counterintelligence of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration and provide for their discharge by that 
     Office.
       (b) Covered Programs and Functions.--The programs and 
     functions referred to in this subsection are as follows:
       (1) The functions and programs of the Office of 
     Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy under section 
     215 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7144b).
       (2) The functions and programs of the Office of Defense 
     Nuclear Counterintelligence of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration under section 3232 of the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2422), including the 
     counterintelligence programs under section 3233 of that Act 
     (50 U.S.C. 2423).
       (c) Establishment of Policy.--The Secretary shall have the 
     responsibility to establish policy for the discharge of the 
     counterintelligence programs and functions consolidated 
     within the National Nuclear Security Administration under 
     subsection (a) as provided for under section 213 of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7144).
       (d) Preservation of Counterintelligence Capability.--In 
     consolidating counterintelligence programs and functions 
     within the National Nuclear Security Administration under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the 
     counterintelligence capabilities of the Department of Energy 
     and the National Nuclear Security Administration are in no 
     way degraded or compromised.
       (e) Report on Exercise of Authority.--In the event the 
     Secretary exercises the authority in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on the exercise of the authority. The 
     report shall include--
       (1) a description of the manner in which the 
     counterintelligence programs and functions referred to in 
     subsection (b) shall be consolidated within the Office of 
     Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence of the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration and discharged by that Office;
       (2) a notice of the date on which that Office shall 
     commence the discharge of such programs and functions, as so 
     consolidated; and
       (3) a proposal for such legislative action as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to effectuate the discharge of such 
     programs and functions, as so consolidated, by that Office.
       (f) Deadline for Exercise of Authority.--The authority in 
     subsection (a) may be exercised, if at all, not later than 
     one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3119. ON-SITE TREATMENT AND STORAGE OF WASTES FROM 
                   REPROCESSING ACTIVITIES AND RELATED WASTE.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law the 
     Department of Energy shall continue all activities related to 
     the storage, retrieval, treatment, and separation of tank 
     wastes currently managed as high level radioactive waste in 
     accordance with treatment and closure plans approved by the 
     state in which the activities are taking place as part of a 
     program to clean up and dispose of waste from reprocessing 
     spent nuclear fuel at the sites referred to in subsection 
     (c).
       (b) TOf the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     3102(a)(1) for defense site acceleration completion, 
     $350,000,000 shall be available for the activities to be 
     undertaken pursuant to subsection (a).''.
       (c) 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 4 
hours of debate equally divided on the amendment.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will take but a few moments because the 
Senator from Washington is on the floor to debate her amendment. It is 
an important and serious amendment she brings, but what she has refused 
to allow Idaho to do this morning, by objecting to the unanimous 
consent request of Senator Crapo, is to deny Idaho and Washington the 
right to assure that the legislation that was passed is not precedent 
setting to the agreements Idaho and Washington now have.
  In 1995, Idaho's Governor Phil Batt, with my assistance, negotiated a 
milestone agreement with the Department of Energy on the cleanup and 
removal of nuclear waste in Idaho. After that agreement was in place, I 
teamed with the then-Senator, now Governor, Dirk Kempthorne, to codify 
that agreement into law as a provision in an annual Department of 
Defense authorization. What Senator Graham of South Carolina has done 
Idaho did in 1995. That became the basis for Idaho to operate and in 
large part then for Washington to proceed to begin the cleanup of a 
very serious problem the State of Washington has at Hanford.
  Certainly, the Senator from Washington and I, and my colleague from 
Idaho, recognize the complexity and the seriousness of this problem. 
That is not in dispute. When DOE then asked to change and modify some 
of those relationships, a judge said, no, you cannot do that without a 
rulemaking process. DOE has determined to go ahead with that, but up 
until then they have said, their attorneys have said and the attorneys 
at OMB have said, you do not have a clear path forward to cleanup. 
Idaho disagrees and Washington disagrees.
  At the same time, DOE does not plan to spend the money, denying us 
the cleanup we expect and we believe is under the milestone agreement 
crafted by Idaho, accepted by DOE, and accepted by this Senate in 1995.
  What the Senator from Idaho tried to do, and the Senator from 
Washington refused to allow him to do, which is very frustrating to 
understand, is to assure any action taken today that South Carolina 
would want to take, that their Governor, their attorney general and 
their environmental agencies want to take, is no way precedent setting 
against the court agreement or against the Idaho relationship and 
agreement Governor Batt crafted and that the State of Washington has.
  Is that confusing to anyone? Well, it should not be. There are fairly 
clear lines out there. I do not understand why we are not allowed to 
clarify that at this moment. If we cannot, then we will clarify it in 
other ways over the course of the action on this bill.
  There are a variety of vehicles we can take because it is paramount 
that we, as we think we have, assure our State agreement is in place, 
and most importantly that DOE can move forward in this fiscal year to 
spend some $97 million in cleanup they are now saying they cannot do 
because the advice from their attorneys and the advice from OMB is not 
to spend; they do not have a clear path forward.
  We believe the legislation offered by Senator Crapo offers that clear 
path forward, and clearly that is the direction we want to go, to 
assure Idaho's agreement, to assure Washington is on firm ground but, 
most importantly that we do not lose 12 or 14 months of cleanup and 
that the $97 million slated to head to Idaho drifts off and is spent 
somewhere else, along with the cleanup money for Washington being spent 
somewhere else.
  We want it on the ground at Hanford. We want it on the ground at the 
INEEL in Idaho Falls doing what DOE and Idaho and Washington are 
proceeding to do. At the same time, I cannot, nor will I, step in front 
of a State that has worked its way through its process and believes it 
is on safe ground to move forward with its cleanup.
  There are some five tanks in South Carolina to be cleaned up. Others 
are being cleaned up now. I am sure South Carolina wants that process 
to go forward. We all know in a rulemaking process, and the vetting 
that goes forward in a rulemaking process, we may well be 24 months 
away from that kind of a decision once the rule is made, once it is 
tested, once it is aired in the public and, I am quite confident, once 
two or three lawsuits are filed against it. Idaho does not have that 
kind of time, nor does the State of Washington, nor does the State of 
South Carolina. We want cleanup. We want cleanup now. And we want it to 
meet

[[Page 11462]]

the standards under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We believe what we 
are doing offers that, profoundly.
  Now we are here to debate what the Senator from Washington and I 
believe is a disagreement between the two of us. I don't disagree with 
all of her bill. I certainly support parts of it. But what I do 
disagree with is that the State of Washington or Idaho or South 
Carolina or any one of the sovereign 50 States of our Nation cannot sit 
down with a Federal agency, under Federal law, and craft an agreement 
that gets them to the appropriate cleanup, acceptable by the 
environmental community in South Carolina, by their Governor, by their 
attorney general. That is exactly what Idaho did in 1995, exactly what 
Idaho's Senators, myself and then-Senator Dirk Kempthorne, brought to 
this Senate floor and brought to the Defense authorization bill--and 
this Senate passed it.
  Why should we deny or refuse those kinds of State relationships? Does 
the Federal Government in all instances totally dominate as long as the 
State is within the construct of the law, the Federal law that governs 
nuclear waste, because that is within the sole jurisdiction of the 
Federal Government. We all understand that. I don't think so. I think 
South Carolina did what they felt they needed to do. DOE agrees with 
them. Now, by action, a voice vote of this Senate, the Senate agrees 
with them. Let's affirm that, protect the State of Washington and 
protect the State of Idaho, make sure their agreements are what we want 
them to be, and move forward. The Idaho Governor and the Idaho 
congressional delegation stand united in that position and in that 
opinion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. The Senator from 
Washington controls the time.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am going to start this debate on the 
Cantwell amendment, which is the pending amendment before us, and take 
15 minutes or so, if the Chair will give me recognition of that time 
being up. Then, depending on how we organize the debate, I would like 
to defer to Senator Hollings of South Carolina because this impacts 
him.
  We are here today to talk about whether we as a body want to change 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and redefine high-level waste as something 
other than waste that should be taken out of tanks in Savannah River, 
out of Washington State Hanford tanks to be stored in a permanent 
repository, or whether we are going to leave some of that in the tanks 
in the ground and have ground water continue to be contaminated.
  What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done is put 
into the Defense authorization bill a change to nuclear waste policy. 
It is a change in 30 years of science and policy in this country that 
says that spent nuclear fuel from reactors is highly radioactive, high-
level waste, and should be reprocessed into glassified logs, vitrified 
logs, and taken to a permanent storage site.
  DOE is now trying to say some of that we can leave in the tanks. We 
don't know how much. We would like to just say it is generally up to 
our discretion and leave some of that in the tanks and thereby not be 
clear with the Congress about what level. That is a change to the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 set the 
standard. If my colleagues want to have a debate about changing the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, this Senator is more than willing to have 
that debate, have the proper hearings, have the proper process, and 
have the debate.
  The actual jurisdiction for that is the Energy Committee, and that is 
what the Parliamentarian has ruled, that the DOD authorization bill 
through the Senate Armed Services Committee was not the appropriate 
authority for changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the language that 
conflicts with that within the underlying Graham amendment that we just 
modified--the underlying bill language which was just modified by the 
Graham amendment.
  Why are we in this predicament? Why are the American people waking up 
on this day finding out that a national debate is about to ensue about 
changing the definition of high-level waste? And that affects every 
State in this country. If you are going to allow one State and the DOE 
to negotiate and change the definition of high-level waste, why not 
just change the definition of transuranic waste or other kinds of waste 
and then, obviously, have that definition apply to States on 
transportation issues, on storage issues, and many other issues?
  Let's review where we are and why I am so concerned, because it 
impacts Washington State. The Hanford Reservation in Washington State 
has 50 million gallons of highly radioactive nuclear waste that is 
already leaking into the ground water. You can see the Hanford 
Reservation site here, and the Columbia River. Imagine my concern about 
tanks leaking into the ground and the fact that leakage contaminates 
ground water, and that affects the Columbia River, a major tributary 
through the Northwest. It affects the vitality of our economy in many 
ways--in fishing, in tourism, in energy generation. No one in the 
region wants to believe that somehow radionuclides are now in the 
Columbia River--which, in fact, they are--and that it is going to grow 
to an amount where we cannot protect humans, fish, and safe drinking 
water. But that is where we are heading if we don't clean up this 
nuclear waste.
  What does it really look like at Hanford today? I point out to my 
colleagues, because the Hanford site, which is on the map here--you can 
see this is the entire Hanford site. This is the picture showing the 
Columbia River. This red spot here is the contaminated ground water 
that is already leaking into the ground from tanks at Hanford. It is an 
80-square-mile area. That is a plume of various chemicals that have 
already leaked out of the tank at Hanford. Similar leakage is happening 
at Savannah river. How this is going to be cleaned up given that the 
leakage is already starting to affect the Columbia River is a major 
issue for the Northwest.
  So we don't take lightly the fact that DOE has now snuck into the 
Defense authorization bill a change in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
that would reclassify this waste and say some of it is low level and we 
can simply grout it. By that they mean they can pour cement and sand on 
top of it and say that it is now fixed.
  I ask the question of my colleagues, If DOE and the State of South 
Carolina had the authority to make a decision on this and work 
together, why don't they just do it? If they are not trying to change 
existing law, why don't they just come together and make an agreement 
on cleanup? They are not because they are trying to change existing 
law. They are trying to change the definition of what is high-level 
waste. They are trying to do that without having the proper hearings, 
without going through the proper committees of jurisdiction, without 
giving people enough time and enough notice on this issue.
  We could continue this debate for many days and not clearly give the 
American people the insight to 30 years of history of nuclear waste 
policy. But let's look at the various definitions of nuclear waste 
because it is an immense framework, that 50 years of disposal law, and 
what is high-level waste and its definition. It is under the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act. What is spent nuclear fuel? It is a definition under 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That is what this underlying bill tries 
to change, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act definition of ``nuclear high-
level waste'' and how spent nuclear fuel can be treated. That is being 
done without a full debate and hearings in the proper committees of 
jurisdiction. What DOE and South Carolina are trying to do is change 
that definition so they can leave some of that storage in the tanks.
  My colleagues would like to say this does not set a precedent. I can 
tell you that is not the way it is being viewed around the country. It 
certainly is setting a precedent. In fact, the Minneapolis Star Tribune 
said this provision:


[[Page 11463]]

     . . . would also set a troubling precedent for waste handling 
     in other states. . . . If shortcuts can be taken at Savannah 
     River, why not at Prairie Island?

  In their site? Why not Idaho, in their facility? Why not as you deal 
with transuranic waste in New Mexico, in Arizona, or in other States? 
Because if you are going to give States and DOE the ability to just 
negotiate definitions and change them, why are we stopping here with 
tank waste?
  Why aren't we considering other things? This is an issue that needs 
the full attention of this Congress. It needs the full attention not 
only of the Members who come from States where we have ground water 
leaking and contamination. Members should realize this vote is about 
changing a Federal policy that has been 30 years on the books without 
the debate and without the science. This is an inappropriate time to be 
changing this policy.
  What about the waste we have in these States? One report I will read 
for some of my colleagues before I turn it over to the Senator from 
South Carolina who wants to make a few points about this, the ground 
water contamination at Savannah River is just as serious as it is in 
Washington State. Yes, they have fewer tanks than we do in Washington 
State, but it is some of the most contaminated waste that exists.
  I am very concerned that we actually do something to clean up the 
ground water. This report entitled ``Nuclear Dumps By The Riverside: 
Threats to the Savannah River from Radioactive Contamination at the 
Savannah River Site,'' which was done in March of this year, says that 
the contamination in the ground water and surface water often greatly 
exceeded safe drinking water limits in both radioactive and 
nonradioactive toxic materials. This material threatens the Savannah 
River and possibly other resources in the region and comes from the 
radioactive hazardous waste being dumped in trenches, contaminated 
soil, and from the high-level waste tanks that are not being retrieved.
  This is a report saying it is leaking into the ground water at 
Savannah River, that it is causing an impact; it is contaminating that 
ground water; it is causing pollution in the Savannah River. I find 
that very much a concern.
  In Washington State, along the Columbia River, this stretch of the 
Columbia River has one of the largest bedding grounds for salmon in our 
State. Now those fish are being contaminated in a similar way if we do 
not come up with an effective cleanup plan.
  What is the tritium and drinking water standard at Savannah River? 
Water that is tritium-tainted is far more dangerous to children and 
developing fetuses than to adults. Recent research indicates the 
current safe drinking water standards for tritium are not adequate to 
protect developing fetuses to the level comparable for that of 
nonpregnant adults.
  What are we saying to people at Savannah River? Do not go fishing in 
the Savannah River? Do not provide some sort of safety for consumers 
who are depending on that?
  The report goes on and talks about subsistence fishing in the 
Savannah River. We have many tribes in the Northwest that fish out of 
the Columbia River, too. We are not going to protect them because the 
level of contamination that is already in the water now is starting to 
show very dangerous signs for both ground water standards and 
subsistence fishing?
  We need to do our job and clean this up. For 30 years the policy has 
been to take the waste out of the tanks, move it, glassify it, and put 
it in a permanent storage. We are changing that with very little debate 
in the Senate today.
  Obviously, I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment 
which would strike this reclassification and say to DOE: Here is the 
cleanup money for the States of Washington, Idaho, and for Georgia, and 
the money should be spent on this cleanup effort.
  It continues the process of cleaning up the tanks that have been 
classified as high-level waste, and it makes the cleanup process 
continue to move forward.
  We took the language from Governor Kempthorne. Governor Kempthorne 
said to many people, including my colleagues from Idaho, that he had 
concern with the current underlying bill. In fact, Governor Kempthorne, 
like our Governor in Washington, has had to deal with this in a major 
way. This is what he said about the legislation:

       [I]t would be a huge step backward, reinforcing public 
     fears about our nation walking away from nuclear cleanup 
     obligations.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed an article from the Idaho 
Statesman in which former Governors Cecil Andrus and Phil Batt said the 
same thing, that to adopt this legislation could jeopardize the full 
implementation and agreement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Idaho Statesman, June 3, 2004]

     Former Governors Raise Concern About DOE Bill on Nuclear Waste

       Two former Idaho governors urged Idaho's senators Wednesday 
     to defend a 1995 nuclear waste agreement as they vote today 
     on two Department of Energy issues.
       Former Gov. Cecil Andrus and Phil Batt raised concerns 
     about an amendment to the $450 billion annual defense budget 
     bill, which would allow DOE to leave some radioactive waste 
     in the ground in South Carolina.
       Critics say the bill threatens the agreement Batt 
     negotiated for removal of nuclear waste from the Idaho 
     National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Idaho's 
     two Republican senators say it doesn't.
       ``We caution our congressmen not to adopt legislation which 
     would in any way alter or jeopardize the full implementation 
     of the agreement,'' Andrus and Batt said in a joint 
     statement.
       Idaho's Republican U.S. Sens. Mike Crapo and Larry Craig 
     say they agree with Batt and Andrus, but believe the bill 
     doesn't threaten Batt's agreement. They say a second 
     amendment they sponsor, which also is up for a vote today, 
     would restore $95 million to the budget to ensure DOE keeps 
     its commitment to Idaho.
       ``We are working overtime now, not only to honor those 
     commitments, but to secure the necessary monies to allow the 
     cleanup to continue at the INEEL,'' Craig said.
       Craig and Crapo find themselves at odds with Idaho Gov. 
     Dirk Kempthorne and Idaho's two Republican U.S. Reps. Mike 
     Simpson and C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, who oppose the plan to 
     reclassify South Carolina's nuclear waste. They argue that 
     passing the bill sets a precedent threatening to undercut an 
     Idaho victory in federal court last year that stopped DOE 
     from reclassifying waste sludge in buried tanks from high-
     level to low-level waste.
       ``This legislation would be a huge step backward, 
     reinforcing public fears about our nation walking away from 
     nuclear cleanup obligations,'' Kempthorne said recently.
       Crapo disagrees. DOE had tried to get he and Craig and 
     Washington senators to sign on to the reclassified definition 
     of waste, which would allow the government to clean up Cold-
     War era sites like the INEEL at far lower costs. But they 
     refused.
       They agreed, however, with Republican Sen. Lindsey O. 
     Graham of South Carolina, that states ought to be able to 
     negotiate separate waste deals that would reclassify the 
     waste differently than elsewhere, Crapo said.
       ``Each state has different needs and circumstances,'' Crapo 
     said.
       Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington has introduced 
     an amendment that would pull Graham's agreement out of the 
     defense bill. She has criticized Graham, Crapo and Craig for 
     proposing the reclassification in South Carolina without a 
     public hearing and national debate.
       ``If somebody thinks this is an issue that affects the 
     state of Washington, or affects just Idaho, or affects South 
     Carolina--it doesn't,'' she said. ``There are bodies of 
     water, with the potential of nuclear waste in them, that flow 
     through many parts of our country.''
       Crapo said he and Craig are willing to strengthen the 
     language in Graham's amendment to ensure it doesn't threaten 
     Idaho, if necessary. Under the 1995 agreement, the federal 
     government is required to remove specific nuclear waste at 
     the INEEL to certain specifications and under deadlines, or 
     face monetary penalties.
       If DOE doesn't respect the deal, shipment of spent nuclear 
     fuels to the INEEL from Navy reactors would have to stop.
       ``All I'm saying is leave our agreement alone,'' Batt said.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Obviously, we want to move forward with the language 
that Kempthorne's office and others in our State of Washington and 
others say to DOE, to move ahead on your cleanup plans under the 
current law, which says that hazardous nuclear fuel, spent nuclear 
fuel, needs to be taken out of tanks, glassified, and put into a 
permanent repository. That is what we have been working toward.
  This is not a debate we should be having in one afternoon on the 
Senate

[[Page 11464]]

floor. It is far more complex than that. This Senator certainly did not 
want to have this complex debate on the Senate floor. This Senator 
wanted this policy to go through the normal channels for discussion.
  This Senator did not fill the amendment tree last week with a process 
in which this Senator had to object just to get a vote. So now we are 
having a debate which gets a time limit on my amendment. But this 
Senator was not the person who set this process in motion. I will stand 
here and debate the policy that is before the Senate.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I yield.
  Mr. ALLARD. We did have a committee hearing on February 25, 2004. We 
had the committee hearing and Mr. Roberson testified in front of that 
committee. On March 23, 2004, there was a committee hearing on the very 
same issue. Those two previous committees were within my subcommittee 
on Armed Services. On March 31, 2004, Senator Domenici in his committee 
had this debate. It has been going on in the Environment and Public 
Works Committee back to 2000. We have testimony from there. There has 
already been a lot of discussion about this subject and the proper way 
of disposing it.
  This is the same kind of procedure we have used in Colorado to clean 
up Rocky Flats where we have had an expedited procedure. The people of 
Colorado are delighted because now we have closure and we have it ahead 
of time and under budget, so far. Hopefully, we can get this to apply 
to other areas.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator have a question? I don't know that I 
heard the question, but let me say the underlying Graham language was 
never debated by the Energy Committee. The underlying Graham language 
was never seen prior to the Energy Committee--before this bill came out 
of the SASC Committee. In fact, the ranking member of the Energy 
Committee sent a letter saying that this SASC Committee did not have 
jurisdiction over this issue.
  So the Graham language in this bill has not been before the Energy 
Committee regarding its exact language and the impact of that language.
  Now, broad concepts about whether DOE has the right to reclassify 
waste, yes, have been a big subject of debate. In fact, that is why I 
believe the courts basically said the Department of Energy does not 
have jurisdiction over this issue and that they have to change the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act if they want to have this authority.
  Mr. ALLARD. If the Senator will yield, I would like to clarify that 
it was not the Energy Committee, it was the Appropriations Energy and 
Water Development Subcommittee. Make that clear for the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used her 15 minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Washington, Senator Cantwell, and my colleague from Michigan, Senator 
Levin. They have been carrying the ball for a national policy 
particularly as it affects my State of South Carolina.
  The truth is, I just heard that the Appropriations Energy and Water 
Development Subcommittee, upon which I serve, had hearings about 
Savannah River. I had never heard of the hearings. I know they did not 
have hearings in the Armed Services Committee and they did not consider 
it in the Armed Services Committee.
  Now, right to the distinguished request made by my wonderful 
colleague from Idaho, they seem to think there is sort of a States 
rights.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will get through my thought and I will yield.
  They seem to think there is sort of a States rights to high-level 
radioactive nuclear waste. I can tell you, I have the distinction of 
standing at the desk of John C. Calhoun, the grandfather of States 
rights. But there are no States rights when it comes to high-level 
radioactive waste.
  I am having a hard time getting a logical grasp to this particular 
problem because I want to be super cautious and understanding of my 
colleague, Senator Graham. He is a wonderful Senator. He and I work 
together on everything, but we differ on this one. It is not a 
political difference; it is a matter of policy.
  I have been involved with nuclear policy over some 50 years. Forty-
nine years ago, as Lieutenant Governor of the State of South Carolina, 
I was chairman of the Regional Advisory Council on Nuclear Energy. It 
was a compact of some 17 States. We were talking about the high-level 
radioactivity waste. At that particular time we were cautioned by the 
experts in nuclear fission that the Savannah River was not a place for 
permanent storage, whatever, in that we had the Tuscaloosa aquifer, 
which is the water supply going into the Savannah River that now 
furnishes Savannah, Augusta, and other cities along that river their 
water supply.
  Otherwise, it is on the very edge of an earthquake fault. The 
earthquake fault comes right through from Calhoun County to Orangeburg 
County over to Aiken County. I had hearings about the San Andreas 
earthquake fault out in California in the Commerce Committee some 30 
years ago. I know how dangerous this is.
  We are all familiar about the dangerous nature of trying to store 
high-level radioactive waste in the Savannah River site. We were told 
at that time: Don't worry they will only be there for 2 years. And now, 
as I stand on the Senate floor, the 2 years has become 4, the 4 has 
become 8, the 8 has become 16, the 16 has become 32; and now it is 
almost 50-some years and we are still dealing with this problem.
  It is a complex problem, but it has been dealt with nationally with 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 
They ascribed to the Department of Energy the administration of high-
level radioactive waste.
  Along came the State of Kentucky, along with this so-called scheme 
that is afoot--the Kentucky case against the United States--and 
Kentucky tried to redefine high-level radioactive waste.
  In the Kentucky decision, under the exclusionary clause, the court 
found they could not do that; that is, States were only relegated to 
solid waste, not radioactive or high-level waste.
  So under that particular decision, citing, of course, the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, they said the States could, yes, 
deal with the solid waste but not with the high-level radioactive 
waste. And we had subscribed. That is what is confusing to this Senator 
and the Senators from Idaho and California and the State of Washington 
and everywhere else, because under that exclusionary clause of the 1954 
Act, you cannot just come around with a little State amendment, and try 
to redefine high-level radioactive waste for the other 49 States or the 
other 48 States.
  That is why, if it were able to be handled just at the State level, 
the Senators from Idaho or the Senators from Georgia or the Senators 
from South Carolina could handle it on their own. It would just be 
handled on their own. That is the dilemma we are in. Because my 
distinguished colleague has not only put in what the New York Times has 
called a stealth amendment, with no hearings and no consideration 
whatsoever, and gone around to his colleagues, obviously, over on the 
other side of the aisle, because he has been looking for assistance 
from Georgia and Idaho and Washington and all the other States that 
could be affected, and he said: Now this only affects my State. My 
Governor is for it and I am for it. I have talked to the Energy 
Department, and this is how to get moving and accelerate the removal of 
this waste. And what I am interested in is the removal of this waste.
  Well, I am interested in the removal of the waste just as 
expeditiously and as safely as possibly can be done. Let me emphasize--
and it will show in an affidavit by David E. Wilson, the Assistant 
Bureau Chief for Land and Waste Management of the Department of Health 
and Environmental Control of South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record the entire affidavit.

[[Page 11465]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   CASE NO. CV-01-413-S-BLW--AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID E. WILSON, JR., P.E.

       Carlisle Roberts, Jr., General Counsel; Samuel L. Finklea, 
     III, Chief Counsel for Environmental Quality Control, Office 
     of General Counsel, SC Department of Health and Environmental 
     Control, Columbia, SC.
       United States District Court for the District of Idaho, 
     Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.; Snake River 
     Alliance, Petitioners, vs. Spencer Abraham, Secretary, 
     Department of Energy; United States of America, Respondents.
       David E. Wilson, Jr., P.E., being duly sworn upon oath 
     deposes and says:
       1. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) owns the Savannah 
     River Site (SRS) located in South Carolina.
       2. Reprocessing of nuclear fuel at the Savannah River Site 
     (SRS), reprocessing occurred at the F and H-Area Chemical 
     Separations Facilities, otherwise known as the F and H-Area 
     Canyons.
       3. Each facility used different suites of chemicals to 
     derive preferred radioactive isotopes, including, but not 
     limited to plutonium, uranium, and neptunium.
       4. Although different suits of chemicals were used in 
     reprocessing, the general process was the same; irradiated 
     nuclear fuel and targets were first dissolved in corrosive 
     chemicals, then other chemicals were added to separate the 
     preferred radioactive isotopes from the fission and 
     activation products in the fuel and targets.
       5. The preferred isotopes were then used for weapons 
     manufacture and other uses, and the separated fission and 
     activation products, along with the chemicals they were 
     suspended in (first and second cycle raffinate streams), were 
     disposed of in under ground tanks.
       6. During the course of reprocessing at SRS, approximately 
     37 million gallons of liquid wastes were generated containing 
     approximately 426 million curies of radioactivity.
       7. The waste placed in these tanks over the years have 
     settled and precipitated out solid materials in a layer of 
     sludge at the bottom of the tanks.
       8. There are 3 million gallons of this sludge (8% of the 
     volume) containing 226 million curies of radioactivity (55% 
     of the curies).
       9. The material above the sludge layer consists of 
     concentrated supernate liquids and post-evaporation salt 
     cake.
       10. There are approximately 34 million gallons (92% of the 
     volume) of supernate and salt cake containing 200 million 
     curies of radioactivity (45% of the curies).
       11. The reprocessing wastes were placed in 51 underground 
     tanks at SRS, ranging in size from 750,000 gallons to over 
     1,300,000 gallons.
       12. Twenty-four (24) of the 51 tanks are constructed of 
     carbon steel inside concrete containment vaults and do not 
     have fully secondary containment.
       13. The remainder of the tanks have full secondary 
     containment.
       14. All 24 tanks that do not have full secondary 
     containment tanks are well beyond their design lives and 9 of 
     the 24 have had known leaks to their secondary containment.
       15. Two of these tanks have been closed through a process 
     approved by the State of South Carolina.
       16. To date, the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) 
     has treated approximately one million gallons of liquid waste 
     containing 30 million curies radioactivity.
       Further your affiant sayeth naught. David E. Wilson, Jr., 
     P.E.
       March 24, 2003, Columbia, SC.
       SWORN TO before me this 24th day of March, 2003.
       Notary Public for South Carolina.
       My commission expires 12/5/05.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me just state at the outset that South Carolina has 
70 percent of all of the Nation's defense-related radioactivity. Under 
section 8 of Mr. Wilson's affidavit, there are 3 million gallons of 
this sludge containing 226 million curies of radioactivity, 55 percent 
of the curies. That is over half of the radioactivity. You are not 
dealing with just little remains and harmless sludge that we can pour 
sand over and then seal with concrete.
  Incidentally, it is not going to leak from the top. The only thing 
that leaks from the top is the Ship of State. That is the White House. 
We all know that. These containers ship and leak from the bottom. We 
have three types of containers: the one single wall, the second type is 
the single wall with a saucer underneath, and then they made the double 
wall.
  We have found, from a recent report by the Alliance for Nuclear 
Accountability, the type 1s and 2s have leak sites. The third type tank 
has small amounts of ground water that have leaked into the tanks, and 
so forth.
  So we are dealing with fire, and we are dealing with it on a national 
basis. Heaven knows, I have worked with it on an international basis.
  In earlier years, they had a plane that, unfortunately, let go of a 
hydrogen bomb into the Mediterranean. If anybody wants to travel to the 
Cote d'Azur or the Mediterranean, all they have to do is come to Aiken, 
SC, because they loaded up the marsh and the sand all where this bomb 
had been dropped in the Mediterranean, put it in 55-gallon drums, 
brought it across the harbor there at Charleston, carried it up and 
buried it in Aiken, SC.
  I have worked with the 5-year compacts, and that is why I was 
astounded and aghast at this idea that somehow this is a little problem 
for South Carolina and it would be easily handled. It is not that 
easily handled.
  This is what the amendment says, and this is, I think, the intent of 
the distinguished colleague from South Carolina, because we have to 
sign off on it.
  Well, under the Kentucky case, there is not any signoff on it. Now, 
of course, the Department of Energy--and they are all friendly with the 
distinguished Secretary Abraham. But I do not trust them--not honest-
wise. I know Senator Abraham is as honest as the day is long, but I do 
not trust his disposition with respect to nuclear. In fact, I had to 
stand on the floor when he was trying to abolish the Department of 
Commerce and Energy. President Bush's Secretary of Energy wanted to 
abolish his Department before he became Secretary.
  This particular amendment has been put on the Armed Services bill, 
without hearings, without us knowing anything about it, and certainly 
without the Attorney General knowing about it. I called two members of 
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and 
they did not know anything about it.
  They were appalled and aghast. It says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of Law with respect to 
     materials stored at a Department of Energy site at which 
     activities are regulated by the State--

  ``At which activities are regulated by the State.'' Now, that goes to 
that 1976 act, which says that the States under that particular 
provision regulate solid waste but not radioactive. That is why we have 
had this difference. One lawyer would say, reading that: Why, it starts 
off ``at which activities are regulated by the State,'' and that could 
only relate to solid waste, not radioactive waste. It doesn't amend the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1954 which exclusively relegates to the 
Congress and to all 50 States the designation of high-level waste.
  But then he goes on to add this language:

       High level radioactive waste does not include radioactive 
     material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear 
     fuel that the Secretary of Energy determines is in deep 
     geological repository and has, to the maximum extent 
     practical, in accordance been removed.

  And you get into these fancy words ``to the maximum extent 
practical.'' Now, why do I say what I do? On the one hand, you know 
what the intent is. The intent of Senator Graham of South Carolina is 
the same intent of Senator Hollings of South Carolina: to protect South 
Carolina from this high-level radioactive waste. But that doesn't 
happen that way because of the Kentucky case and everything else of 
that kind.
  You can go and read the Kentucky decision. I don't want to take up 
all of the time. In other words, it isn't the intent. And if I was 
seated as a judge on a court saying, well, let's try to find out what 
the congressional intent was, the congressional intent was not to 
redefine high-level radioactive waste; it was just to allow an 
agreement with the State of South Carolina and the Department of Energy 
to work out how to remove that sludge. But it didn't go to the basic 
law. That would be one argument.
  Another argument would say: Wait a minute; with the State of South 
Carolina, we can do whatever we want, and we could give permission to 
the Department of Energy, the right to reclassify high-level 
radioactive waste.
  So you have this duplicity in this particular amendment, particularly 
as you see how it is drawn. Section D of the amendment says: Defined in 
this section, the term ``State'' means the State of South Carolina.

[[Page 11466]]

  So all you have to do is run around to the colleagues and work the 
amendment and legislation in the same way. I don't fault my colleague, 
but I think he is making a grievous error in the sense that he is 
saying this just applies to the State of South Carolina, and we can 
protect the State.
  The Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, has been strong on the 
environment. I knew he wouldn't approve it. Now I have his letter 
purportedly approving it.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      State of South Carolina,

                                       Columbia, SC, May 20, 2004.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to support Section 3116, 
     Defense Site Acceleration Completion, in the FY 2005 
     Department of Defense Authorization bill, S. 2400. More 
     specifically, this section of the bill will allow for an 
     accelerated clean up of the Savannah River Site in South 
     Carolina.
       This Administration is concerned about the prospect of 
     long-term storage of radioactive waste in aging tanks at the 
     Savannah River Site. Under the current Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Act, the cleanup process could leave the waste in those 
     storage tanks for an additional 30 years.
       However, the amendment allows the U.S. Department of 
     Energy, working with the South Carolina Department of Health 
     and Environmental Control, to move more quickly to clean up 
     the Savannah River Site. In fact, the estimated cleanup time 
     will be reduced by 23 years, at a savings of $16 billion to 
     the taxpayers.
       Most important is ensuring that the State of South Carolina 
     will be able to retain an oversight role in the cleanup 
     process. According to analysis by the South Carolina 
     Department of Health and Environmental Control, the state's 
     environmental regulatory agency, the clean up process will 
     still require an equal partnership with the State.
       As you move through the legislative process, we urge you 
     and your colleagues to retain two very important goals for 
     South Carolina: 1. allow for a more accelerated clean up 
     process, and 2. provide strong language to protect the 
     State's sovereignty within the process of accelerated 
     cleanup.
       Thank you for your leadership in the United States. I look 
     forward to working with you on this and many other matters of 
     importance to our State.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mark Sanford,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. This is on May 20. He addresses it to Senator Graham 
and says: I am writing about this section to allow an accelerated 
cleanup. The administration is concerned--he is talking about the 
prospect of long-term storage at Savannah River. However, the amendment 
allows the Department of Energy, working with the State of South 
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, to move more 
quickly to clean up the Savannah River site.
  He doesn't say to reclassify high-level waste. And in fact, the 
estimated cleanup time will be reduced. Here is the key paragraph of 
this particular letter:

       Most important is ensuring that the State of South Carolina 
     will be able to retain an oversight to the cleanup process.

  No. Under the exclusionary clause, there is no oversight by the State 
of South Carolina, the State of Idaho, the State of Colorado, the State 
of Michigan, the State of Washington. There is no oversight to that 
particular provision because you have the categorical law under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act where the Congress alone defines it and not by 
agreement between the health and environmental department of a 
particular State and the U.S. Department of Energy.
  So you can see that the Governor thinks he has something. But then he 
cancels it out. It reminds me when we had the reorganization of our 
insurance department. The Capital Life Insurance Company was 
reorganizing and looking for a slogan. And the winning slogan was by 
Sam B. King. He said: Fritz, do you know what the new slogan is? 
Capital Life will surely pay if the small print on the back don't take 
it away.
  So you have a similar kind of situation here in this amendment and in 
this letter and in this understanding and this intent. You have to go 
to congressional intent. He says: It ensures that the State of South 
Carolina will be able to retain an oversight. You don't retain an 
oversight over the exclusionary clause of the definition of high-level 
waste by an agreement between a DEHC department and the Department of 
Energy. Come on. That is exactly what we have in play here.
  The House of Representatives over on the congressional side, they 
considered this and said: Wait a minute; if we are going to redefine 
high-level radioactive waste in America, let's go to the National 
Academy of Sciences and get an expert. Don't listen to Senator Hollings 
or Senator Graham or any other Senators or any other Secretary that is 
trying to save money because they have been engaged in this over the 
years. Let's go to the National Academy of Sciences. Let's have 
hearings. Let's get the expert opinion. And if there is a redefinition 
of high-level radioactive waste, we will have it. But let's not do it 
this way.
  I have many an authority here with respect to it, but the most recent 
authority is the State itself. You can get a letter from the Governor, 
but here is the amicus brief in the National Resources Defense Council 
v. Spencer Abraham whereby in Idaho they have already lost the case. 
The council brought it in the State of Idaho. The State of Idaho joined 
with them and everything else like that, and they lost at the district 
level.
  Then on appeal, we have a brief signed by Samuel L. Finklea, the 
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 2600 
Bull Street, Columbia, SC, dated 23 March. So as of March 23, the State 
of South Carolina on appeal said: No way; we are with Idaho. We are 
with the decision. We are not redefining high-level radioactive waste.
  And yet you have the State of South Carolina's Governor writing this 
letter but saying, provided further that the State has a sign-off, 
which legally it can't. You can't designate to the State under the 
exclusionary clause one State sign off to the thing. That is what has 
caused the confusion here and the misunderstanding between the 
particular colleagues.
  I am going to cut it short because I know everybody wants to move 
today. I think I have made our position clear. I have letters here. I 
ask unanimous consent that letters and citations from the South 
Carolina Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and various other 
organizations that I will enumerate be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    South Carolina


                                          Wildlife Federation,

                                       Columbia, SC, June 2, 2004.
     Senator Fritz Hollings,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: Today I am writing you because we at 
     the South Carolina Wildlife Federation are concerned and 
     appalled at the effort to reclassify certain categories of 
     nuclear waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Merely 
     changing the name of the waste from high-level with the wave 
     of a magic wand does not make the risk to the environment any 
     less. On the contrary, it means that an unnecessary and 
     unacceptable risk will be inflicted upon the citizens and 
     wildlife of South Carolina, Georgia and the country as a 
     whole.
       The South Carolina Wildlife Federation opposes the proposed 
     changes to the Defense Authorization bill to reclassify these 
     high-level wastes as ``incidental'' thereby lowering the 
     standard for cleanup.
       The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act is specific in its policy 
     regarding the disposal of nuclear waste as it clearly states 
     for this waste to be buried deep underground in a repository 
     chosen for disposal of this waste. The Department of Energy 
     (DOE) has made several attempts in the past to shirk its 
     responsibility and the courts have soundly rejected its 
     reclassification attempts.
       Failing to clean up the tanks and remove the waste can lead 
     to serious long-lasting pollution of the Savannah River and 
     the groundwater resources of South Carolina, resources that 
     provide water for drinking, industry, and agriculture. The 
     Savannah River is also an extremely important recreational 
     resource for boating and fishing, and it provides critical 
     wildlife habitat for diverse fishery, waterfowl and other 
     species.
       Thank you for once again coming to the rescue of the 
     environment through your co-sponsorship of the Cantwell-
     Hollings Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, S. 
     2400. Your amendment would remove the reclassification 
     language from the Defense Authorization bill. We fully 
     support you in this effort.

[[Page 11467]]

       Such an important change in the nuclear waste storage 
     policy should only be given serious consideration in a stand-
     alone bill where it can be put forth for full debate in the 
     light of day, not bobtailed onto a spending bill. Thank you.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Angela Viney,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                       Sierra Club


                                       South Carolina Chapter,

                                       Columbia, SC, June 2, 2004.
     Re: S. 2400 Defense Authorization

     Senator Ernest Hollings,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: The South Carolina Chapter of the 
     Sierra Club thanks you for the Cantwell-Hollings Amendment to 
     S. 2400, the Defense Authorization Bill.
       Senator Lindsay Graham has decided that the best way to 
     eliminate an environmental hazard is to redefine it. We find 
     this unacceptable.
       When Department of Energy Secretary Abraham visited the 
     Savannah River Site (SRS) recently he named SRS a national 
     laboratory specializing in nuclear waste cleanup. For a 
     moment we rejoiced in thinking that both the environment and 
     economic development would benefit simultaneously.
       That thought did not last long. Senator Graham said we do 
     not need to make every effort to clean-up highly radioactive 
     waste. According to him it can be abandoned on the site 
     permanently with an amendment to the Defense Authorization 
     Bill.
       Congress is needlessly debating whether to lower our 
     standards for protecting our water supplies from radioactive 
     waste leaking from nuclear weapons production sites. We 
     appreciate you being on the right side of this issue.
       The SRS complex houses approximately 37 million gallons of 
     high-level radioactive waste, much of it in the form of 
     liquid sludge. That is enough radioactive waste to fill every 
     bathtub in Richland, Lexington and Aiken counties in South 
     Carolina.
       When SRS was built in the 1950's, the plan was to move out 
     the waste from nuclear weapons production within 10 years. 
     The deadly waste is still there 50 years later. If Graham's 
     amendment passes, South Carolina will be stuck with it 
     forever.
       This dangerous waste is stored in old tanks that have been 
     known to leak. The tanks sit in the water table in one of the 
     largest and most important watersheds in the Southeast. The 
     Savannah River and the entire watershed serve agriculture, 
     industry, fishing, and recreational activities. Failing to 
     clean up the tanks will lead to a serious and long-lasting 
     pollution threat that is detrimental to the entire nation.
       Graham proposes mixing the radioactive sludge with grout 
     and using the tanks as permanent waste depositories. This 
     action was declared illegal by a federal judge in Idaho. That 
     is why Graham has introduced his amendments, to make what is 
     now illegal, legal.
       Before jumping into this risky method of waste storage, 
     most studies need to be done on the potential for water 
     supply contamination by waste leaching out of the grout. This 
     method of storing the waste may actually make it more 
     difficult to retrieve it in the event of a leak.
       State Attorney General Henry McMaster has filed an amicus 
     brief on behalf of South Carolina agreeing with the National 
     Resources Defense Council, the environmental group that 
     initiated the lawsuit, that the waste not remain in its 
     current location.
       Another concern about Senator Graham's provision is that it 
     would allow DOE sole discretion in deciding what constitutes 
     high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina, severely 
     limiting the state's voice on such matters. The state would 
     no longer be the final say on what defines high-level waste 
     in our own backyard and the state would have limited or no 
     power to halt DOE from abandoning this highly radioactive 
     waste. So much for ``states rights'' and ``checks and 
     balances.''
       The Sierra Club urges the deletion of sections 3116 and 
     3119 of the Defense Authorization Act. Please do not allow 
     the abandonment of high-level radioactive waste at SRS.
       Again, Senator Fritz Hollings, thank you for standing up 
     for South Carolina and safeguarding the welfare of our future 
     generations by opposing the Graham amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dell Isham,

                                              SC Chapter Director,
                                                      Sierra Club.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. The South Carolina Wildlife Federation; South Carolina 
Sierra Club; South Carolina Coastal Conservation League; Carolina Peace 
Resource Center; Environmentalists, Inc.; the mayor of Savannah; Action 
For a Clean Environment; Atlanta Women's Action for a New Direction; 
Center for Environmental Justice; Coosa River Basin Initiative; Georgia 
Conservation Voters; Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition; Physicians 
for Social Responsibility in Atlanta; Southern Alliance for Clean 
Energy; Alliance for Nuclear Accountability; National Council of 
Churches; Sierra Club; National Resources Defense Council; Public 
Citizen; Episcopal Church; United Methodist Church; American Rivers; 
League of Conservation Voters; Church Women United; GreenPeace; a 
number of Native American tribes; and the Idaho Conservation League.
  Incidentally, Mr. President, this particular editorial that appeared 
timely this morning, ``Shortcut on Nuclear Waste,'' in the New York 
Times, outlines the particular problem. It emphasizes why we don't have 
States' rights with respect to high-level radioactive waste. We are 
playing with fire here on the Armed Services bill. This is a stealth 
amendment with no hearings and no consideration. I know my State as 
well as anybody. In the majority of the State, everybody is against 
this.
  I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial be printed 
in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Shortcut on Nuclear Waste

       The Senate may consider today whether to allow the Energy 
     Department to reclassify certain nuclear wastes at a weapons 
     plant in South Carolina so they can be disposed of faster and 
     cheaper than if the department complied with current law. 
     Although many senators may be tempted to skim over this issue 
     as a matter of parochial concern to South Carolina, they need 
     to consider this matter carefully lest they set a terrible 
     precedent. The Energy Department has a notoriously poor 
     record in handling environmental issues. It should not be 
     granted such unbridled power to define its waste problems 
     away with the stroke of a pen.
       The Savannah River site in South Carolina has accumulated a 
     huge inventory of radioactive wastes left over from weapons 
     production, some 37 million gallons held in 51 underground 
     tanks. Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, virtually all 
     of this material is deemed high-level waste, which must be 
     disposed of in a deep repository like the one being built at 
     Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
       For some years now, the Energy Department has been hoping 
     to separate its wastes into two streams, reserving deep 
     burial for only the part with high radioactivity. In the case 
     of the South Carolina site, the department is prepared to 
     pump most of the waste out of the tanks for disposal through 
     deep burial. But it wants to leave a hard-to-remove residue 
     of sludge in the tanks and bury it under grout.
       Officials estimate that this approach could save $16 
     billion and trim 23 years from the lengthy cleanup process. 
     But those plans were stymied when a federal judge in Idaho 
     concluded that the scheme violated the waste-policy act.
       Now Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, 
     has inserted language in a defense authorization bill that 
     would achieve the same end. It would allow the department to 
     reclassify the wastes in South Carolina in a way that would 
     allow the disposal of some material on the site. Mr. Graham 
     notes that the state's governor and its health and 
     environmental regulators have signed off on the plan, and he 
     says the decisions on how to handle each tank will be made 
     collaboratively by federal and state officials.
       Senator Graham's language is potentially a highly 
     significant change in nuclear waste policy, yet it was 
     inserted into a broad military authorization bill behind 
     closed doors, without the benefit of hearings or open 
     discussion. This is unacceptable, given that few areas could 
     have more potential impact on public health for thousands of 
     years into the future.
       The Energy Department is largely empowered to set its own 
     waste disposal policies, with only minimal oversight from the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Before allowing the department 
     to reclassify its waste products, the Senate should follow 
     the lead of the House and call for an in-depth study of the 
     approach by the National Academy of Sciences. The decision 
     should not be left to an agency that is desperate to get past 
     a staggeringly difficult waste disposal problem.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my 
distinguished colleague from Washington for her leadership, and also 
Senator Levin for alerting me to this particular danger. This is a 
highly dangerous matter. We should not be running around with a little 
legislative rider on the Armed Services bill on a single State 
exception, even if it were legal. I don't think it is legal. But even 
if it were legal, it would all of a sudden indirectly, and without 
other States being involved, redefine high-level radioactive waste. We 
don't want to do that. This is no way to legislate, and no way to treat 
this highly dangerous element.

[[Page 11468]]

  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. In a moment, I will call on the junior Senator from South 
Carolina.
  First of all, I want to clarify this for the Record. We have had 
three hearings this year on this very issue. Prior to this year, we 
have had a number of hearings dealing with the disposal of nuclear 
waste. I know for a fact the Environment and Public Works Committee had 
a hearing in 2000 on the disposal of nuclear waste.
  On February 25, 2004, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed 
Services Committee held a hearing on the development of an energy 
environmental management program, and a key witness was Jesse Roberson, 
and we talked about this very issue.
  On March 23, 2004, in the Armed Services Committee hearing we had on 
the Department of Energy programs, a key witness in that particular 
hearing was Secretary Spencer Abraham.
  On March 31, 2004, at the Appropriations Energy and Water 
Subcommittee hearing on environmental management, a key witness was 
Jesse Roberson.
  Having clarified that for the Record, I yield 10 minutes to the 
junior Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, in terms of my senior 
Senator, who I respect greatly, there is no doubt in my mind that he 
loves his State. Secondly, this is not about who loves South Carolina. 
We have a policy disagreement about what is best for our State. That 
happens on occasion in politics. Senator Hollings has been more than 
gracious in terms of helping me adjust to the Senate and coming to my 
office, and I publicly acknowledge that. I regret that we differ, but 
we do.
  I assure my colleagues that I just did not wake up one day, as the 
junior Senator from South Carolina, sneaking around everybody to come 
up with an amendment that would change the whole national policy on 
nuclear waste for the heck of it. I didn't do that. I have been in 
Congress now for 10 years and in the Senate for a little over a year 
and a half. In the House, I represented the Savannah River site, our 
State's largest employer. It is the facility that was intricately 
involved in winning the cold war. We have over 50 tanks full of high-
level liquid waste.
  The Clinton administration and myself had a bumpy road. I think it is 
fair to say I did not agree with the Clinton administration a lot, but 
one thing that we did find common ground about in the 1997 timeframe 
and I think Senator Allard probably remembers this--is that the Clinton 
administration came up with a new way of looking at high-level waste, 
how you characterize it.
  There was a hearing about this in 2000 in the Senate before I got 
here. During the Clinton administration, the policy was--and before the 
Clinton administration--that if the material started out life as high-
level liquid waste, no matter what happened in the intervening time or 
whatever characterization it had after being treated, it would have to 
be considered high-level waste--defense material, high-level waste. The 
Clinton administration said that is not very logical. What we need to 
do is look at the characterization of the waste at the end, not where 
it came from. There was a hearing in May of 2000 about that concept. I 
supported that concept then and I support it now.
  In all due deference to my senior Senator, there is nothing in this 
amendment that changes the definition of high-level nuclear waste. The 
way you look at high-level nuclear waste and the way you characterize 
it was changed in the Clinton administration in a logical way. We have 
cleaned up two tanks. That has been lost in this debate. There are 50-
plus tanks of high-level liquid waste. Two of them have been dried up 
and cleaned up. The procedures to clean up those tanks have worked. 
That has been several years ago. This amendment allows more money to be 
put on the table to clean up the rest of the tanks.
  Here is what we have been able to do. We have been able to strike an 
agreement between the environmental regulators in South Carolina and 
the Department of Energy defining what ``clean'' is in terms of those 
tanks. All of the liquid waste will be taken out. There will be about 
an inch and a quarter of material left in the bottom of the tank, like 
the other two tanks that have already been closed. There will be a 
process to treat that inch and a quarter. The NRC has been consulted 
and has blessed this project, saying what is left in the bottom of the 
tank after it is treated is waste incidental to reposit.
  About people and their opinions regarding what is best for the safety 
of my State, my senior Senator has been an advocate for my State for a 
very long time. I respect him. I can assure you I share his concerns 
about what is best for the environment of this region.
  I have some letters I would like to introduce. I have a letter from 
the Governor of South Carolina that I think he has already introduced. 
Last week, when we talked about this, Senator Hollings said he cannot 
believe the Governor would support this. He has been a great 
environmentalist.
  Mark Sanford, our Governor, does have a very good environmental 
record, depending on what scorecard you want to look at. But Mark comes 
from the coast. I think most people would say he has been 
environmentally sensitive.
  The letter that Senator Hollings read, please do not misunderstand at 
all, this is an absolute total endorsement of this amendment by our 
Governor. I am not the type of Senator who would not tell our Governor 
what we are doing. The Governor was given the language a long time ago.
  On April 27, we had a delegation meeting about this language. I have 
been shopping this language around for weeks. We have been talking 
about how to clean up Idaho, Washington, and South Carolina for years. 
We have had hearings in Senator Allard's committee about this very 
topic, where DOE came in and talked about the plan to clean up these 
tanks and talked about the two tanks that had already been cleaned up.
  There have been negotiations going on between Idaho, Washington, and 
South Carolina, independent of each other, with the DOE to try to find 
a common ground in those States as to how to clean up this high-level 
liquid waste.
  To my colleague in Washington, who truly is a friend, and I am sorry 
we got so off stripped on this, we will get over it and work together 
for the common good when this is over.
  On January 26, 2004, Congressman Hastings, Senator Murray, and 
Senator Cantwell sent a letter to Governor Locke and Secretary Abraham 
and asked them to work together to resolve the ongoing dispute over 
waste classification. They did a very good thing in that regard. I ask 
unanimous consent to print that letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 2004.
     Hon. Gary Locke,
     Governor, State of Washington,
     Olympia, WA.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     Secretary, Department of Energy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Governor Locke and Secretary Abraham: We have become 
     increasingly concerned about the lack of an agreement between 
     the State of Washington and the Department of Energy to 
     resolve the ongoing dispute pertaining to the classification 
     of High Level Waste.
       Our primary and overriding concern is the safe and timely 
     cleanup of the Hanford site. We know that we share this goal 
     with both the State of Washington and the United States 
     Department of Energy.
       We are calling on you to take the initiative to establish 
     immediate high level discussions between the State of 
     Washington and the Department of Energy to resolve this 
     issue. We would like to see a commitment to continue the 
     dialogue until such time as a mutually acceptable agreement 
     can be reached.
       We know the parties have legitimate disagreements. We would 
     ask that such conversations take place without preconditions

[[Page 11469]]

     being set, which could serve to hinder successful 
     negotiations.
       The stakes are incredibly high and the price of failure is 
     the continued exposure of the people and the environment to 
     unnecessary risks, by potentially slowing the pace of cleanup 
     activities.
       We know you share our commitment to making our communities 
     safe. We ask for your leadership to create momentum for a 
     successful resolution of this issue.
       In the past when seemingly intractable problems have faced 
     cleanup obstacles, they have been solved by your common 
     commitment to rise above the obstacles to reach shared 
     objectives. We are confident that working together this 
     outcome can be reached.
           Sincerely,
                 Congressman Doc Hastings,
                 Senator Patty Murray,
                 Senator Maria Cantwell.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, the letter was an effort 
by the legislative delegation in the State of Washington to get the DOE 
to come up with some classification system for Hanford.
  Our distinguished Presiding Officer from the State of Idaho has been 
working for months now for his State to see if they could come up with 
a classification system for the State of Idaho. In February 2004, the 
Governor of Washington indicated he would designate someone to enter 
into discussion on behalf of the State of Washington. Governor Locke's 
chief of staff called the Deputy Secretary to indicate he was the 
Governor's designee to hold discussions with the Department of Energy. 
Shortly thereafter, the Department of Energy shared draft language with 
the State of Washington.
  What has been going on here for a very long time is a collaborative 
process between the three States and the Department of Energy to 
remediate the environment when it comes to high-level waste in a manner 
acceptable to the State. That is the process. That has always been the 
process, and that must be the process.
  But here is what we do not want to do as we negotiate individually. 
We do not want to, as my senior Senator said, have a State have the 
ability to define high-level waste because it is a national concern and 
a national issue. So we have been jealously guarding that concept. This 
amendment does not give the State of South Carolina the ability to 
define high-level waste because we would have 50 different versions. 
What it does do is it requires a collaborative process. We have already 
closed two tanks, and before those two tanks could be closed, South 
Carolina had to issue a permit saying: Yes, they are able to be closed. 
This amendment gives the State of South Carolina permitting authority 
over tank closure. That is exactly what Washington and Idaho are trying 
to pursue.
  Governor Locke has been working with DOE. The difference is South 
Carolina has gotten there, and to my friend from Washington, there will 
come a day--soon, I hope--where you can negotiate classification of 
waste with DOE satisfactory to Washington. And there will come a day 
when the Governor of Washington, whoever that may be, will say: That is 
a good deal. And the regulators in the State will say: That is a good 
classification with which we can live.
  The truth is, if that day ever arrives, because of the way the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act is written, you are going to need legislative 
language to bless that agreement.
  Washington has a severe problem with tank leakage. I want to tell my 
friends from Washington, if that day arrives to where you can find a 
standard acceptable to your State--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I ask for 5 more minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. If that day ever arrives, the Senator 
from Washington is going to come to this body, and I am going to help 
her. I say the same to my friend from Idaho. That day has arrived in 
South Carolina. We have vetted this proposal with everybody I know.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Speaker of the South 
Carolina House, David Wilkins, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    South Carolina


                                     House of Representatives,

                                       Columbia, SC, May 27, 2004.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: It has come to my attention that you 
     have included language in the FY 2005 Department of Defense 
     Authorization bill, S. 2400, which would allow for 
     accelerated cleanup of the Savannah River Site. I write today 
     to express my support of Section 3116.
       I understand that the South Carolina Department of Health 
     and Environmental Control has worked with you since August of 
     last year to craft legislation that gives South Carolina ``a 
     seat at the table'' when determining what radioactive 
     materials will remain in South Carolina. I support that goal 
     and the expedited cleanup of the radioactive waste tanks at 
     the Savannah River Site.
       South Carolina and the Department of Energy have had a good 
     working relationship over the years. It is my sincere hope 
     that your legislation will allow this partnership to continue 
     in a mutually beneficial way which cleans up SRS more 
     expeditiously and in a fiscally prudent manner.
       I concur with Governor Sanford. This language will allow 
     for a more accelerated cleanup process and will help protect 
     the State's sovereignty with respect to the accelerated 
     cleanup.
       Thank you for your service to the State. I look forward to 
     working with you on this and other issues of importance to 
     the State and Nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 David H. Wilkins,
                                             Speaker of the House.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that a letter from the deputy commissioner of the South Carolina 
Environmental Quality Control, Robert King, Jr., be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 
           Control,
                                       Columbia, SC, May 18, 2004.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Re: Sec. 3116. Defense Site Acceleration Completion
       Dear Senator Graham: The Department has reviewed the above 
     referenced language proposed to be added to the S. 2400 
     National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005. As you are 
     aware, the Department considers the storage of high-level 
     radioactive waste in aging tanks at the Savannah River Site 
     to be the single most potentially hazardous condition to the 
     environment and people of South Carolina. In fact, the 
     Department has worked closely with the Department of Energy 
     (DOE) to safely close two of the original fifty-one storage 
     tanks.
       It is the Department's position that the above referenced 
     language will provide a process to close the remaining 
     storage tanks in a similar manner. This will include removing 
     highly radioactive radionuclides to the maximum extent 
     possible and will also provide for public participation in 
     the decision-making process.
       As always, alternative language could be developed; 
     however, this proposed language allows DOE to move forward 
     with the important task of removing the high-level 
     radioactive waste from the storage tanks while providing a 
     decision-making framework in which the State is included.
       If you have any questions or need any further information, 
     please have your staff contact David Wilson at (803) 896-
     4004.
           Sincerely,

                                          Robert W. King, Jr.,

                                Deputy Commissioner, Environmental
                                                  Quality Control.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, this letter to me says 
that the agreement they have achieved with DOE is environmentally sound 
for South Carolina; we would like to move forward with tank cleanup. 
Here is why this is so important to my State: It will allow $88 million 
to be put on the table. It will allow these tanks, now that we have 
reached an agreement to become dry and safe and secure and closed up, 
to be closed 23 years ahead of schedule. I invite everybody in this 
body to come to Aiken, SC, and the surrounding community to enjoy golf, 
leisure, and fishing. I will take you fishing in the Savannah River, if 
you would like to go.
  I do not want 23 years to go by and the chance of the tanks leaking 
to grow. I do not want the problem that Washington has. I want 
Washington to be able to fix their problem, and I will

[[Page 11470]]

help the State of Washington. But I have a chance to do something in my 
State that we have not had a chance to do in 10 years. The origin of 
this being done started in the Clinton administration, and we are 
building on what happened then.
  This amendment is focused only on the agreement in South Carolina. 
Senator Crapo, Senator Craig, and Senator Alexander have an amendment 
to make it absolutely certain. I think it already is, but I am not here 
to put any other State in a bad situation. I am not here to make 
Washington do what we are doing in South Carolina or to prejudice Idaho 
at all. I am just simply asking this body to listen to the people who 
are responsible for the ground water who tell me this is a good 
agreement, it will help my State if we move forward on it, and it will 
safe $16 billion, for whatever that is worth.
  The attorney general of South Carolina was mentioned by my 
distinguished senior Senator. I have a letter from him supporting this 
agreement. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                      the State of South Carolina,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                                     May 18, 2004.
     Re: Sec. 3116. Defense Site Acceleration Completion
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: It is my understanding that the South 
     Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 
     supports your proposed amendment to be added to the S. 2400 
     National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005.
       DHEC considers the storage of high-level radioactive waste 
     in aging tanks at the Savannah River Site to be potentially 
     the most hazardous environmental situation in South Carolina. 
     Your proposed amendment allows federal authorities to remove 
     this radioactive hazardous waste, while ensuring that the 
     State is statutorily included in the process, with ultimate 
     ``veto'' power on removal decisions.
       Please allow this letter to serve as my official statement 
     of support for your amendment.
       Thank you for all that you do on behalf of South Carolina 
     and its grateful citizens.
           Yours very truly,
                                                   Henry McMaster.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, when we talk about 
people with agendas, there are all kinds of political agendas when one 
talks about nuclear programs. That is just politics, and that is the 
strength of America. There is nothing wrong with that.
  I have a letter from the Aiken County, SC, legislative delegation--
Democrat and Republican house members and senators--who say please 
approve this agreement because it will clean up these tanks ahead of 
schedule, and it will be a good thing for our community. The difference 
between them and the New York Times, which is a great paper, is they 
live there. The Savannah River site is located in Aiken, SC.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Aiken County,


                                       Legislative Delegation,

                              Aiken, South Carolina, May 25, 2004.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: We are writing to support Section 
     3116, Defense Site Acceleration Completion, in S. 2400. As we 
     understand it, this section of the bill will allow The 
     Savannah River Site to accelerate cleanup of the Site's 
     remaining waste tanks in a manner consistent with the way 
     Tanks 17 and 20 were closed in the late 1990s.
       We believe that your language will allow the establishment 
     of environmentally prudent regulations regarding tank waste 
     that will allow the Department of Energy, in conjunction with 
     the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 
     Control, to move more quickly to clean up the Savannah River 
     Site.
       We especially appreciate your efforts to work with the 
     State to ensure the State of South Carolina will have a seat 
     at the table when determining the ultimate disposition of any 
     materials left in the state. We concur with Governor Sanford 
     that according to analysis by the South Carolina Department 
     of Health and Environmental Control, the cleanup process 
     envisioned by Section 3116 will provide ``a decision making 
     framework in which the State is included.''
       We appreciate your efforts on behalf of the Aiken Community 
     to get this cleanup done expeditiously and your continued 
     efforts to do it in a way that decreases the impact on the 
     taxpayers of this nation.
         Senator W. Greg Ryberg, Senator Thomas L. Moore, Senator 
           Nikki Setzler, Representative Robert S. Perry, Jr., 
           Representative Donald C. Smith, Representative William 
           ``Bill'' Clyburn, Representative J. Roland Smith, 
           Representative James ``Jim'' Stewart, Jr., 
           Representative Ken Clark.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I have another letter 
from the mayor of Aiken, Fred Cavanaugh, who worked at this site, 
supporting this agreement. In addition, I have a letter from Ronnie 
Young, the chairman of the Aiken County Council, where the council 
endorses this amendment.
  I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, the people who have to 
make a living. I can assure you the Aiken County Chamber of Commerce 
believes this will not poison the area. It will do absolutely the 
opposite. It will make it more attractive.
  I ask unanimous consent to print those letters in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            City of Aiken, SC,

                                                     May 26, 2004.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     Russell Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I want to thank you for the positive 
     work you are doing on behalf of the citizens of our country, 
     South Carolina and closer to home, Aiken County. More 
     precisely, thank you for seeking a resolution to the 
     questions related to the definition of--radioactive waste 
     incidental to reprocessing (WIR). As we know, radioactive 
     waste stored in underground tanks is the greatest potential 
     risk to public health and the environment at the Savannah 
     River Site (SRS), and unless resolved, the WIR lawsuit and 
     related issues will stop these critical activities. Your 
     amendment to the Senate Armed Services Committee 
     Authorization Bill will allow for the continued removal and 
     disposition of the waste in a safe manner, and we believe it 
     is critical that it be enacted into law.
       Your amendment allows SRS to continue to remove waste and 
     close tanks to the same standards and with the same diligence 
     as in the past. It has the endorsement of SC/DHEC and the 
     Governor of South Carolina. Under your amendment SC/DHEC will 
     continue to oversee and approve all SRS waste removal and 
     disposal activities thus assuring continued protection to the 
     public and environment.
       Conversely, without your amendment, activities to remove 
     and dispose of high level radioactive waste will be stopped 
     and wastes will remain in the less safe liquid form in fifty 
     year old underground tanks. Instead of completing waste 
     removal by 2018, wastes will remain in the old tanks. Equally 
     critical will be the loss of trained and skilled SRS workers 
     because this critical work will stop. I support your 
     amendment as being in the best interest of the citizens of 
     South Carolina who are interested in the safe removal and 
     disposition of high level radioactive wastes. Please convey 
     my position on this important matter to your colleagues in 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                Fred B. Cavanaugh,
     Mayor.
                                  ____



                                         Aiken County Council,

                                          Aiken, SC, May 25, 2004.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: This letter comes as confirmation of 
     my support of Section 3116, Defense Site Acceleration 
     Completion in the FY 2005 Department of Defense Authorization 
     Bill, S. 2400. This bill will allow for an accelerated clean 
     up of the Savannah River Site.
       Aiken County is very concerned with the storage of high 
     level radioactive waste in aging tanks at the Savannah River 
     Site. Under the present Nuclear Waste-Policy Act, the cleanup 
     could leave the waste in the aging storage tanks for 
     approximately 30 additional years. This possibly is the most 
     potentially hazardous condition to the people and environment 
     of South Carolina.
       However, with the acceptance of Section 3116, Defense Site 
     Acceleration Completion, the Department of Energy and the 
     South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 
     will be able to move much more quickly to cleanup the 
     Savannah River Site, with an estimated savings of $16 billion 
     to the taxpayers.
       During the cleanup, it is of major importance to the 
     citizens of South Carolina that we are allowed to retain an 
     oversite role in the cleanup process.
       I urge you and your fellow statesmen to allow for the 
     accelerated cleanup process at the Savannah River Site and to 
     provide a decision making framework in which the State of 
     South Carolina is included.

[[Page 11471]]

       If you have additional questions or need other information, 
     please contact me at (803) 642-1690.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ronnie Young,
     Chairman, Aiken County Council.
                                  ____



                            Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce,

                                                     May 25, 2004.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: Let me begin by saying thank you for 
     your efforts in seeking a resolution to the uncertainties 
     related to the definition of radioactive waste incidental to 
     reprocessing (WIR). Radioactive waste stored in underground 
     tanks is the greatest potential risk to public health and the 
     environment of the Savannah River Site, and unless resolved, 
     the WIR lawsuit and related issues will stop those critical 
     activities. Your amendment to the Senate Armed Services 
     Committee authorization bill will allow for the continued 
     removal and disposition of waste in a safe manner.
       SRS has safely removed radioactive wastes from underground 
     tanks for almost ten years and has permanently closed two 
     tanks. These efforts were permitted by the South Carolina 
     Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC/DHEC) with 
     the oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
     The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reviewed the SRS 
     program and stated that it is comparable to commercial 
     requirements and standards.
       The Chamber supports your amendment as being in the best 
     interest of those citizens in Aiken and South Carolina who 
     are interested in the safe removal and disposition of high-
     level radioactive wastes.
       Without your amendment, activities to remove and dispose of 
     high level radioactive wastes will be stopped and wastes will 
     remain in the less safe liquid form in fifty-year old 
     underground tanks. Instead of completing waste removal by 
     2018, wastes will remain in tanks for a significantly longer 
     period of time. Additionally, the SRS cannot afford to loose 
     these highly trained and skilled employees.
       In closing, the Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce, 
     representing 900 businesses and 40,000 employees within the 
     region believes that it is critical that your amendment be 
     enacted into law. Again, thank you for your continued support 
     of the greater Aiken region.
           Signature,
                                                    Charles Weiss,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I have letters from the 
mayor of Jackson, SC, which is down site; the Aiken Electric 
Cooperative; the Economic Development Partnership from Aiken; the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has blessed this project saying that what 
is left in the tank is waste incidental to reprocessing; the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has looked at this amendment; the North 
Augusta Chamber of Commerce, a community on the other side of the site; 
and the SRS Retiree Association, people who worked their whole lives 
out there supporting this.
  Mr. President, quickly, we will have more time to talk. This is a big 
deal to my State. Similar efforts are ongoing in other States, and I 
hope they get there. I am not going to do anything to prejudice their 
ability to get there on their terms. I am simply asking that the deal 
struck between the environmental regulators and our Governor in South 
Carolina be approved so that we can clean up the rest of these tanks, 
the 49 remaining, in an economically and environmentally sound fashion.
  That is all this has ever been about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Allard for yielding to 
me at this time.
  I rise today in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from 
Washington, but I do so by first saying that this is an extremely 
complex issue. I happened to be presiding one night when the Senator 
from Washington stood up and talked about her amendment. I respect very 
much the issues she has delineated. She has done a very good job of 
articulating the complexity of this issue and why it needs to be 
thought through so carefully before we vote, as we are going to do 
today.
  After carefully reviewing the facts, I am convinced the language 
adopted in the Armed Services Committee related to disposal of nuclear 
waste at the Savannah River Site is prudent and that this language 
should not be struck.
  The Savannah River site is located in Aiken, SC, right on the South 
Carolina-Georgia border. About half the folks who work at the Savannah 
River site live in my State. Operations and the treatment of waste at 
the Savannah River Site affect my State, as well as South Carolina, 
because if there is any polluting, if there is any leakage, it will go 
into the Savannah River which is on the border of South Carolina and 
Georgia.
  Current provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in the fiscal year 
2005 funding for the Savannah River Site restrain and preclude planned 
risk reduction activities in the treatment and disposition of 
radioactive waste. Section 3116 is extremely important to the 
Department of Energy's environmental remediation and cleanup efforts at 
the Savannah River Site. It will resolve both the nuclear waste policy 
and funding issues and allow these risk-reduction activities to 
continue.
  This provision will allow the cleanup of these materials 23 years 
earlier and at an estimated cost savings of $16 billion. Regardless of 
the cost savings, it is imperative that the cleanup of the Savannah 
River Site be completed at the earliest date possible.
  The Savannah River Site is currently home to 49 tanks containing 35 
million gallons of radioactive material that is divided into three 
types of waste: liquid, sludge, and sediment. Section 3116 will allow 
South Carolina and the Department of Energy to execute the agreement 
that has been reached on how best to treat this tank waste.
  In 1997, the Savannah River Site became the first site in the 
Department of Energy complex to close a high-level waste tank. The 
language in the bill was worked out with great care between the State 
of South Carolina, State environmental regulators, Senators on both 
sides of the aisle, and the Department of Energy.
  I quote from a letter sent to the Secretary of Energy from the 
Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board in relation to section 3116 of 
the Defense bill, the section this amendment will strike.
  The letter states:

       The Board believes that disposal of wastes as contemplated 
     in Section 3116 can be accomplished safely and should enable 
     efficient disposition of the radioactive waste.

  It is true that an Idaho district court struck down the DOE rule 
which set procedures for nuclear waste disposal across the board. 
However, the court struck down this rule based not on the content of 
the rule but because they thought the rule exceeded DOE's jurisdiction. 
I agree DOE should not have unilateral ability to determine nuclear 
waste disposal policy. However, I believe the procedures DOE has 
implemented at the Savannah River Site are sound and that these 
procedures should be allowed to continue while the question of who has 
the authority to set cleanup standards and policies is resolved. In 
fact, the procedures which section 3116 would allow have been in place 
since the early 1980s.
  I would also like to note, in response to those who believe the low-
yield sludge should be removed in the tanks at the Savannah River Site 
and other facilities, that the process of removing that sludge would 
increase the risk to workers by sevenfold and significantly increase 
the risk to the environment based on the risk of extracting the tanks 
and transporting the additional fuel thousands of miles across country, 
significantly increasing the exposure to the population at large.
  Section 3116 in the underlying bill will prevent substantial delays, 
the accompanying health and safety risks, and increases in the expense 
of removing and disposing of this material, a delay in expense not 
driven by public health and safety considerations but, in fact, 
contrary to public health and safety.
  Without clarifying the law, the delay would likely create more 
serious health and safety risks to workers and members of the public by 
leaving the waste in tanks longer and risking leaks to ground water. 
Delays in increased costs will require DOE to divert resources from 
other efforts across the complex in a manner that would significantly 
distort the Department's

[[Page 11472]]

cleanup and other priorities. There is less risk to the workers, the 
environment, and the communities by removing the waste from the tanks, 
extracting the high-level waste from the other types of waste for 
appropriate disposal, and stabilizing any small amount of low-level 
waste residues in place in the tanks using a cement grout.
  Physicists, not lawyers, should determine if radioactive waste is 
high- or low-level waste. The physical characteristics, not the source, 
of radioactive waste should determine if it is high-level or low-level 
waste.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this amendment by 
supporting an expeditious and safe cleanup of the nuclear waste at the 
Savannah River site.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from New 
Mexico, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, to give a 
statement, but before that I want to enter into the record a couple of 
documents and make a statement.
  First, I have great respect for the junior Senator from South 
Carolina and his work on so many issues. He did a great service for 
many men and women in this country by leading a battle in getting 
health care coverage for the National Guard. There is a large 
percentage in our State serving in the National Guard in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and I know my State thanks him on this.
  On this issue, we certainly disagree. I think it is a change in 
strategy, or at least a deal that has been cut behind closed doors, 
because I do view it as a change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That 
is the way my State views it. That is the way 20 newspapers across the 
country view it. That is the legal opinion of staff, that it is a 
change to the definition of what is high-level waste.
  I point out that South Carolina, up until the Senator's amendment, 
has been pretty consistent. I have an August 12, 2003, letter sent to 
the Secretary of Energy from the State of South Carolina, signed by the 
State of South Carolina saying DOE already has the tools it needs to 
address this issue; that it does not need to use a sledge hammer to get 
the job done, and goes ahead and says they should use the current 
definition of the law.
  Also in March 2004, a couple of months ago, South Carolina said DOE 
cannot ignore Congress's intent by simply calling high-level waste by a 
different name. And later, South Carolina goes on to say this poses a 
threat to the citizens' health and natural resources.
  So I find it very interesting that the State of South Carolina filed 
those documents in court, sent letters to the Secretary of Energy 
making those statements, and now all of a sudden South Carolina has 
changed its position. I don't know if they were saying they didn't 
believe in their case and that is why they wanted to spend the State's 
legal time and money filing it. I don't know if they have their cabinet 
officials signing letters to the Secretary of Energy that they don't 
believe. But I think actually the issue is the State of South Carolina 
has been pretty consistent. In fact, the House Members, when this issue 
was before the House of Representatives, said let's not put any 
language in changing the definition of what is high-level waste. If 
there needs to be a study, we are willing to study it. That is what the 
members of the South Carolina delegation voted on. So I think they have 
been pretty consistent.
  While my colleague, the junior Member from South Carolina, is trying 
to move ahead on nuclear waste cleanup, I think we have a disagreement 
among ourselves and with what South Carolina's position has been 
consistently for several years now, and that is that DOE has the 
authority. What DOE wants to do is leave waste behind. They don't have 
the authority to do that, nor does science think that is a prudent way 
to deal with this issue.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that material printed in the Record, 
Mr. President.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Summary of Argument


   natural resources defense council, et al. versus spencer abraham, 
                secretary, department of energy, et al.

       In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congress recognized that 
     spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste generated as a 
     result of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel pose a 
     grave, long-term threat to public health and the environment. 
     As a consequence of this threat, Congress enacted the NWPA to 
     ensure that this waste is permanently isolated in a deep 
     geologic repository. In both the NWPA and the Atomic Energy 
     Act (AEA), Congress defined ``high-level radioactive waste'' 
     to require DOE to consider first, the source of the waste and 
     second, the concentration of fission products in solidified 
     wastes. The definition follows: ``(A) the highly radioactive 
     material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear 
     fuel, including the liquid waste produced directly in 
     reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid 
     waste that contains fission products in sufficient 
     concentrations; and (B) other highly radioactive material 
     that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines 
     by rule requires permanent isolation.'' 42 U.S.C. 10101(12). 
     The AEA incorporates this definition by reference. 42 U.S.C. 
     2014(dd).
       By using the same definition in the NWPA and AEA, Congress 
     made plain its intent to include spent nuclear fuel 
     reprocessing waste resulting from defense activities within 
     the scope of the HLW disposal scheme that Congress 
     established in the NWPA. Congress clearly intended that the 
     definition of HLW would apply to both commercial and defense 
     waste and that HLW from both sources would be permanently 
     isolated. This intent becomes even clearer when reading this 
     definition in the context of Congress's reasons for enacting 
     the NWPA, to wit, permanently isolating radioactive waste 
     because of the long-term danger it poses to human health and 
     the environment.
       The evaluation method of DOE Order 435.1, however, 
     establishes a system for reclassifying high-level radioactive 
     waste that provides DOE unlimited discretion to determine 
     whether a large volume of highly radioactive waste stored in 
     or near our states is required to be disposed of in a deep 
     geologic repository. Such unfettered discretion is not 
     provided for in the NWPA or AEA and this Court should affirm 
     the District Court's decision invalidating DOE's attempt, 
     through Order 435.1, to ignore the criteria in these 
     statutes.
                                  ____

                                                  August 12, 2003.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     U.S. Department of Energy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Abraham: The Department of Energy and states 
     affected by DOE facilities face technical, political, and 
     fiscal challenges as we decide how to treat and dispose of 
     high-level waste created by Cold War-era reprocessing. It 
     will take our combined efforts to devise and implement 
     responsible, effective policies that protect human health and 
     the environment as well as respect taxpayer dollars.
       We write to express concern with DOE's current strategy for 
     addressing this key issue. DOE's recent proposal to reopen 
     the Nuclear Waste Policy Act runs counter to our mutual 
     interests.
       Fortunately for our shared high-level waste challenge, 
     reasonable solutions exist within the current law without 
     undermining public trust in DOE's efforts to properly manage 
     nuclear waste. DOE already has the tools it needs to address 
     this issue by making internal policy changes; it doesn't need 
     a sledgehammer to do the job.
       DOE's recent statements to Congress appear to exaggerate 
     the impacts of the recent judicial decision on high-level 
     waste classification. The federal court decision only 
     confirmed long-standing national policy, which requires 
     disposal of high-level waste in a geologic repository while 
     allowing properly treated, less radioactive wastes to be 
     disposed elsewhere.
       The court's ruling allows DOE to proceed with retrieval and 
     treatment of liquid waste from tanks at Hanford, Savannah 
     River and INEEL. If the wastes in question are not highly 
     radioactive following treatment, DOE has the ability now to 
     develop a classification strategy to qualify these wastes for 
     management, including disposal, outside a high-level waste 
     repository. What the court rejected was giving DOE free rein 
     to override national policy as expressed in the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act.
       The States of Idaho, Oregon, South Carolina and Washington 
     participated in the lawsuit, not as parties, but as friends 
     of the court to protect our interests in safe, cost-
     effective, timely cleanup and responsible use of repository 
     capacity. As you may know, last November the states made a 
     concrete proposal to resolve these issues outside of 
     litigation, outlined, the legal and practical risks 
     associated with continuing to litigate this matter, and 
     offered to enter into mediation with the parties. DOE 
     rejected our efforts and choose to litigate instead.
       Today we renew our offer to work with DOE to develop a 
     waste classification strategy that ensures protective, cost-
     effective,

[[Page 11473]]

     and timely disposal of the nation's defense high-level 
     radioactive waste in a manner consistent with the court's 
     opinion.
       We urge you to reconsider your strategy and to work with 
     the states on a reasonable solution within the framework of 
     existing law. By doing so, we can do the job right without 
     jeopardizing progress on repository development, slowing down 
     cleanup or undermining public trust in our efforts.
     C. Stephen Allred,
       Director, State of Idaho Department of Environmental 
     Quality.
     Tom Fitzsimmons,
       Director, State of Washington Department of Ecology.
     R. Lewis Shaw,
       Deputy Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Health 
     and Environmental Control.
     Michael W. Grainey,
       Director, State of Oregon Department of Energy.

  Ms. CANTWELL. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico who, 
as the ranking member from the Energy Committee, knows of our efforts 
to try to get the Senate Armed Services Committee not to deal with this 
issue since they didn't have jurisdiction over it. He sent a letter to 
the committee urging them on that and has had a great deal of history 
on this issue.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Washington for yielding me 
time to speak to her amendment to strike section 3116 and follow-on 
sections. Section 3116 is labeled the Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion. That is the name of the section. That is a fair 
characterization of what the provision intends to do. It does propose 
to hasten the day when the Department of Energy can declare its work 
complete.
  In my view, it does not accelerate in any way the cleanup of DOE 
defense sites. It does accelerate the date that DOE can declare its 
responsibility completed. In fact, to the contrary, the provision 
allows the Department of Energy to abandon its commitment to clean out 
these sites and to walk away from them while there are substantial 
amounts of high-level radioactive waste still in the ground.
  Section 3116 is not a model of clarity. I am told the provision no 
longer applies to DOE sites in Washington State, Idaho, and in New York 
as it once did. It now only applies to high-level radioactive waste 
tanks at Savannah River, S.C. There is not specific language in the 
provision saying that, but I am certainly willing to accept the intent 
of the provision.
  The obvious question is, what is in the Savannah River tanks? From 
1953 until the end of the cold war, the Department of Energy at 
Savannah River has made plutonium for our nuclear weapons. It did so by 
irradiating uranium fuel in five nuclear reactors on that site and it 
then reprocessed the spent fuel to separate the plutonium from the 
highly radioactive waste products. The waste material consists of a 
mixture of highly toxic, hazardous chemicals used in the chemical 
separation process--a mixture of that along with a wide variety of 
highly radioactive fission products and transuranic elements, formed 
during the nuclear reaction. Some of these fission products emit 
intense amounts of radiation over a short period of time. Others emit 
less intense amounts of radiation over a much longer period of time. 
Both pose a serious danger to the public health and to the environment.
  The short-lived radionuclides remain dangerous for hundreds of years. 
The long-lived ones remain dangerous for thousands of years.
  The Department of Energy has been storing this mixture in 51 steel 
tanks at Savannah River. The tanks each hold on average about a million 
gallons of waste. In other words, each is about the size of our Capitol 
dome. I repeat, we have 51 of those tanks, each about the size of the 
Capitol dome, located at Savannah River. The waste in the Savannah 
River tanks is, by definition, high-level radioactive waste. We have 
been using that term in our laws now for over 30 years. Different laws 
have worded the definition differently, but they have all said 
essentially the same thing, and that is that high-level radioactive 
waste is the material that results from reprocessing spent fuel, and 
that includes both the liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing 
and any solid material that settles out of the liquid or is derived 
from it.
  There are two important legal consequences that flow from this tank 
waste being defined as high-level radioactive waste. The first legal 
consequence is that its disposal is subjected to licensing and 
regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That is required under 
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which was signed into law by 
President Ford.
  The second legal consequence is the waste must be buried in a deep 
geological repository, rather than being left where it is. This is a 
requirement we put into law in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 
which was signed into law by President Reagan.
  The Department of Energy has begun removing the liquid waste from the 
tanks at Savannah River and turning it into glass logs and storing the 
glass logs until they can be buried in a geologic repository which is 
expected to be built at Yucca Mountain. Removing all of the sludge that 
has settled to the bottom of these tanks clearly is going to prove 
difficult and expensive. So to sidestep that requirement, the 
Department of Energy would like to reclassify the waste as something 
other than high-level radioactive waste and leave it where it is.
  Years ago the Department of Energy adopted an administrative order 
asserting that they had the authority to do that. Last fall a Federal 
judge in Idaho held the order was unlawful.
  The Department is now asking Congress to change the law and to give 
the Department of Energy the power the court said the Department did 
not have. Section 3116 would do that, so far as the Savannah River 
tanks are concerned. The language of 3116 is very clear. It says 
notwithstanding all of the laws that say Savannah River wastes are 
high-level radioactive wastes, the Secretary of Energy, in his 
discretion or her discretion, can decide they are not high-level 
radioactive wastes.
  The Secretary's discretion would not be entirely without limits. 
Section 3116 imposes three tests that have to be met for the Secretary 
to exercise this discretion, but on close examination those tests 
impose very few restrictions on the Secretary. Let me talk a minute 
about each of these three tests.
  The first test is that the material ``does not require permanent 
isolation in a deep geologic repository.'' As I said before, the high-
level radioactive waste is made up of both intensely radioactive short-
lived radionuclides and less intensively radioactive long-lived 
radionuclides. The first step speaks to the second group of less 
intensely radioactive long-lived radionuclides. The need for permanent 
isolation correlates with the length of time the material remains 
radioactive. According to the Department of Energy, over 99 percent of 
the radioactivity now present in the high-level waste tanks is from 
short-lived radionuclides. These will remain dangerous for several 
hundred years. But because they will decay to safe levels sometime 
before the end of this millennium, they do not, according to the 
Department of Energy, require permanent isolation in the deep geologic 
repository.
  The first test in section 3116 may look like a serious hurdle, but 
according to the Department of Energy, 99 percent of the radioactivity 
in the tanks passes that test.
  The second test is no better. It requires the secretary to determine 
that ``highly radioactive radionuclides have been removed to the 
maximum extent possible.'' The second test speaks to the first proof of 
radionuclides, intensely radioactive, short-lived ones which DOE 
believe make up 99 percent of the radioactivity in the tanks.
  The second test is no test at all. It does not require DOE to reduce 
the highly radioactive short-lived radionuclides to meet a public 
health and safety standard based on the maximum

[[Page 11474]]

safe dose to the public or a maximum concentration level. It simply 
says do what can be done ``to the maximum extent practicable.''
  That means, as the court said last summer, ``if DOE determines that 
it is too expensive or too difficult to remove short-lived 
radionuclides from the waste, DOE is free to say the waste is no longer 
high-level radioactive waste, even though it will remain dangerous for 
centuries.''
  The third test is the most illusory of the three. At first glance it 
appears to subject the disposal of the tank wastes to State regulation. 
If the third test is meant to do that, it marks a major departure in 
the law. The courts have consistently held that the Atomic Energy Act 
preempts the States from regulating nuclear waste disposal. The third 
test confers no authority on the State to regulate nuclear waste 
disposal. It clearly states that South Carolina's Regulatory Authority 
must be ``conferred on the State outside this Act.'' So far as I am 
aware, there is no Federal law that gives South Carolina or any other 
State the authority to regulate the disposal of high-level radioactive 
defense waste.
  The only agency with authority to regulate the disposal of high-level 
radioactive waste is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has had 
that authority for 30 years. Section 3116 strips it of that authority, 
limits its role to one of ``consultation'' and ``review'' of criteria.
  My conclusion is that section 3116 is a very troubling provision. It 
deregulates the disposal of the Savannah River tank waste in all but 
name. It is essentially the legislative equivalent of the ``Mission 
Accomplished'' banner we saw on the aircraft carrier that allowed the 
Department of Energy to declare its work was done and to walk away from 
its obligations.
  Section 3116 also sets a terrible precedent, in my view. If we agree 
to give DOE this authority at Savannah River in this bill this year, 
why not give the same authority with regard to Hanford next year and 
with regard to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory next year? And with regard to West Valley Demonstration 
Plant the year after that?
  Enactment of section 3116 may also toll the death knell from the 
Civilian Nuclear Waste Program that we have had in place for many 
years. That program is already in serious jeopardy. It is years behind 
schedule. It is likely to be grossly underfunded this year. It is beset 
by lawsuits and serious technical challenges. Shipping nuclear waste on 
the public highways and railways will be extremely unpopular. Section 
3116 sends the message that we do not need a deep geologic repository 
for Savannah River tank waste, that it is safe to leave those wastes 
where they are.
  The obvious question is, If it is safe to leave high-level waste in 
the Savannah River tanks, why not leave those same kinds of wastes at 
Hanford and at the Idaho laboratory? If it is safe to leave defense 
wastes where they are, why not leave commercial powerplant wastes where 
they are, as well?
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator 
Cantwell's amendment and to strike section 3116 from the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I reiterate for the record this was a collaborative approach between 
the State of South Carolina and the Department of Energy. They sat down 
for hours and they looked at wherever jurisdiction was and said: We 
have a common goal. We would like to remove this waste as soon as 
possible. So they have worked out an agreement.
  That is what this amendment is all about that Senator Graham is 
talking about. It is good science. We have a lot of support out there. 
In fact, in an Environment and Public Works hearing in the year 2000, 
my colleague from South Carolina mentioned that particular hearing 
where they talked about the disposal of nuclear waste. The Natural 
Resources Defense Council actually said the regulation of radioactive 
waste should be based on its hazardous characteristics and not when it 
was generated.
  That is what has been proposed by the Department of Energy. The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission had this to say about what the Department 
of Energy is trying to do with the work:

       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.

  This was out of the letter sent May 18, 2004, to the Chair of the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, James Inhofe.
  I have another letter from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board. When it comes to safety, they are strong advocates for safety. 
One sentence illustrates what this letter is all about, dated May 14, 
2004:

       The Board believes that disposal of waste as contemplated 
     in Section 3116 can be accomplished safely and should enable 
     efficient disposition of the radioactive waste.

  This is the agreement, again, worked out between South Carolina and 
the Department of Energy.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 61 minutes for the Senator from 
Washington and 86 minutes 41 seconds for Senator Allard.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am strongly in support of the 
Cantwell-Hollings amendment. To me, this debate is about process, 
policy, and precedent. In my view, the provision in the underlying bill 
that the Cantwell amendment replaces fails all three tests.
  As my colleagues have explained, the reason we are in the Senate 
debating this issue is that the Armed Services Committee added language 
to the Department of Defense authorization bill, giving the Department 
of Energy broad new authority to reclassify nuclear waste so it can be 
left in place rather than disposed of according to the best technical 
know-how.
  Along with the Presiding Officer, I am privileged to serve on the 
Armed Services Committee. I consider it a great honor and 
responsibility. However, I simply do not think we should be including a 
shift in nuclear waste cleanup policy in the DOD bill. Any major change 
to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which is what the underlying language 
represents, should be considered by the committees of jurisdiction, the 
Energy Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. Any 
major change in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act should be considered in 
open hearings where a range of views can be expressed.
  Instead, a major change was made to this essential policy of our 
Nation in a closed markup of the Armed Services Committee. The 
committees of jurisdiction were not consulted about the language in the 
bill. We have had no hearings about this language yet here we are on 
the Senate floor debating it. Even some of my friends on the other side 
of the aisle who are supporting it have cloaked their support in 
lukewarm language because it is not all clear what the full 
implications of these changes would be.
  A few years ago, the Department of Energy decided to change the 
definition of high-level waste by its own fiat, notwithstanding years 
of precedent and statutory language to the contrary.
  Now, I do not have enough technical knowledge--I do not even dream of 
understanding all that would go into making a decision about how to 
define high-level nuclear waste--but people were concerned about that 
decision by the Department of Energy, and so they sued over the change.
  When the Department of Energy lost in court, a suit on which my State 
of New York filed an amicus brief, in support of overturning the 
Department of Energy change, then, obviously, the Department of Energy 
chose a different route.
  They first tried it on the Energy bill. But because of other 
conflicts over the

[[Page 11475]]

Energy bill, they were not successful. So then they came back with the 
Department of Defense bill. Unfortunately, this was a closed process, 
and many people who would otherwise have an opinion were not able to 
participate.
  I think this is not in the best interests of making policy on such an 
important issue. It may very well be that an open policy process--with 
hearings with the committees of jurisdiction being involved--would lead 
to the State of South Carolina having different options than other 
States. I could understand that. But that is not how this has come 
before us.
  Certainly, on behalf of the State of New York, they are very much 
opposed to the underlying language in the DOD authorization. I want to 
express the State's opposition.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from Gov. George Pataki, dated May 6, 2004, addressed to 
Senator Levin, as well as an editorial from the Buffalo News dated May 
10, 2004.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            State of New York,

                                          Albany, NY, May 6, 2004.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: I urge you to oppose language proposed 
     by the Department of Energy (DOE) in the FY05 Department of 
     Defense Authorization Act that could allow DOE to reclassify 
     high level radioactive waste contained in underground tanks 
     at several DOE sites across the country, including the former 
     spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility at West Valley, New 
     York. In July 2003, a federal district court ruled that DOE's 
     order permitting such reclassification violates the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act. DOE has appealed that decision to the 
     United States Circuit Court of Appeals, and the appeal 
     remains pending. New York and the States of Washington, 
     Oregon, Nevada, and South Carolina filed an amicus brief in 
     that case opposing DOE's position that it has the authority 
     to reclassify high level radioactive waste in order to shirk 
     its responsibility to safely remove it.
       The reclassification of high level radioactive waste would 
     allow DOE to leave the high level waste in the ground where 
     the tanks are located, instead of shipping the high level 
     waste to a federal repository, as required under the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act. This reclassification would be particularly 
     egregious at West Valley, where DOE is proposing to close 
     underground storage tanks containing thousands of gallons of 
     radioactive material, and then leave it to New York State to 
     monitor and maintain the closed tanks to protect the 
     groundwater for thousands of years.
       While I am in favor of expediting the cleanup of 
     radioactive waste, speed should not come at the expense of 
     completing cleanups essential to protecting public health and 
     safety. It is my understanding that there is sufficient work 
     for DOE to do at all of the sites in question, including West 
     Valley, while DOE works with the states, tribes, and public 
     health and environmental advocates to develop final cleanup 
     solutions that are acceptable to all parties.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 George E. Pataki,
     Governor.
                                  ____


                 [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 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 Hillard 
     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 safer glass logs, which were 
     supposed to be stored elsewhere. But the anticipated long-
     term storage facility at Yucca Flats is years from 
     completion. 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.

  Mrs. CLINTON. I am concerned how this is being portrayed, and I am 
sure it is meant to be a fix for a specific situation in South 
Carolina, but it is setting a precedent. That is what we do around 
here. We set precedents. It is hard to imagine that the Department of 
Energy would be satisfied only taking their new definition to one 
State. It would be South Carolina first, but then what would be next?
  In particular, I am concerned about western New York where we have a 
site known as West Valley. Through the West Valley Act, the Federal 
Government and the State of New York agreed, decades ago, to partner to 
reprocess commercial nuclear waste. In many respects, this project has 
been a success, but in the last several years the site has been the 
subject of a bitter debate between the Federal Government and the State 
of New York. Why would that be? Because, in New York's view, the 
Department of Energy is not fulfilling its responsibilities for the 
cleanup obligations it assumed under the West Valley Act.
  I bring this up because it is directly relevant, even though it is 
not the same act. The West Valley site has the same type of waste that 
the Department of Energy would be able to reclassify at Savannah River 
under section 3116 of the Department of Defense bill. That is no 
coincidence.
  Rather, the language that the Department of Energy originally sought 
to include in both the Energy bill last year and the DOD bill this year 
would have provided the DOE with general authority to reclassify high-
level wastes at Hanford, Savannah River, the Idaho labs, and West 
Valley.
  Now, obviously, West Valley does not have the mind-boggling 
quantities that are present at other sites, but we are still talking 
about 600,000 gallons of waste. That is a significant amount. It is not 
a problem that New York State or the local governments in the area will 
be able to handle if the Department of Energy decides it can wash its 
hands literally of its responsibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. So when the Department of Defense markup approached, 
New York Governor George Pataki wrote to Chairman Warner and Ranking 
Member Levin urging them not to include DOE's language in the bill.

[[Page 11476]]

  While the provision was changed before the markup, and it is now 
intended only to affect the Savannah River site, DOE's original 
language would have affected West Valley and the other sites I have 
mentioned. We know that is exactly what DOE is aiming for. That is 
their goal and their objective, to try to reclassify nuclear waste.
  So New York State remains opposed to section 3116 of the bill. On 
behalf of the Governor and my State, I am supporting the Cantwell 
amendment, because I think we need a different process to get to the 
point of determining what our nuclear waste classification system 
should be.
  It is certainly a very difficult issue. I respect the Presiding 
Officer's concern about the cost. I share that concern. These are 
incredibly expensive undertakings that go on for decades. But, in 
effect, we are cleaning up the mess we made. We made it for military 
purposes. We made it for commercial purposes. We owe it to ourselves 
and future generations to do it as well as it can be done. I, for one, 
hope we can take this issue off the floor of the Senate by passing the 
Cantwell amendment. Then let's have the hearings in the Energy 
Committee and the EPW Committee. If there is a role for the Armed 
Services Committee, let's do it there, also, because, for me, this is 
setting a precedent that is very troubling, to have a matter this 
important decided in such a quick consideration in a closed markup of 
the Armed Services Committee. I hope we will support the Cantwell 
amendment, and then put our heads together to determine if there are 
differences between Savannah River, Hanford, and West Valley that merit 
different classifications. If there are new advances in dealing with 
how we would grout over the high-level nuclear waste--we know that has 
not worked in the past; maybe it can work now--then we can proceed in a 
more sensible manner that protects the health and safety of our people 
and preserves the environment in the areas where this waste is stored 
and dispose of it appropriately.
  I thank the Senator from Washington for being such a leader on this 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for 
coming to the floor and speaking on this issue, and for her leadership 
in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  Before my colleague from Washington and I got a whiff of this plan, 
because the Senate Armed Services Committee met behind closed doors on 
this issue and the language was considered behind closed doors--I 
appreciate the fact that the Senator from New York was there fighting, 
at the very beginning, this language being put into the DOD bill. I 
appreciate her comments about the fact that basically we are taking a 
bill that is about defense authorization and now changing waste policy, 
and weighing down the process.
  Why would we want to weigh down the process of moving something that 
is about supporting our troops and supporting our efforts with a change 
in nuclear waste policy? The House dealt with this responsibly. They 
said: If you want to look at this policy, let's study it and get 
information. So that is what the House has done.
  Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Washington 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cantwell 
amendment. I thank my colleague from Washington State for her tireless 
effort on this issue and her commitment to assuring the Federal 
Government meets its responsibility to the people of our State by fully 
cleaning up the Hanford site.
  Today, on the Senate floor, there is an unprecedented attack on my 
State's ability to ensure that we clean up the nuclear waste that 
threatens the families I represent. I am here to fight it. I am here to 
send a clear message to the administration: You should be back at the 
table working with all the States and all of Congress instead of trying 
to get the Senate to bail you out of a court case that you lost.
  The handwriting is on the wall. The White House wants Washington 
families to accept a lower cleanup standard. They are holding our 
funding hostage. They are fighting us in court. They are pushing 
misguided legislation right here on the Senate floor.
  If the White House wins this attempt to leave more nuclear waste 
untreated, then Washington State families will lose. That is why I am 
on the Senate floor with my colleague from the State, Senator Cantwell, 
fighting the bill's nuclear waste provisions and standing up for my 
State.
  I know my colleague from Washington agrees that the fastest, most 
effective way to clean up America's contaminated nuclear sites is for 
the DOE to work as a partner with the States. But sadly, we are here 
today seeing a new attempt by the White House to overreach its 
authority, to circumvent a court case it lost and blackmail my State 
into accepting a lower cleanup standard. That threatens the families I 
represent, and I am not going to stand for it.
  What is at stake is the cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation in 
the tri-cities in Washington where we developed the plutonium that 
helped our country win World War II and the cold war. My grandfather 
settled in the tri-cities in 1916. My dad grew up there. My dad saw how 
much those communities sacrificed to help our Nation have a strong 
military. Our country has an obligation to make those communities 
whole, not leave them with high nuclear waste that has leaked from 
underground tanks.
  Any time someone has threatened our cleanup efforts, I have taken 
them on, and it doesn't matter if they are Democrats or Republicans. In 
the 1990s, when the Clinton administration proposed inadequate budgets 
for the Hanford cleanup, I took them on, and I used my position in 
committee and on the Senate floor to get my State the funding we 
needed. Every time the Bush administration has tried to cut Hanford 
funding, it had a fight on its hands from this Senator. It is one of 
the reasons I joined with my colleagues in 2001 to create the Senate 
Nuclear Cleanup Caucus so that all communities across the country that 
are dealing with nuclear waste will have a strong bipartisan voice in 
the Senate.
  Time and again I have taken on this White House when it tried to hurt 
the families I represent, and I have the scars to prove it. In fiscal 
year 2002, the Bush administration tried to cut Hanford funding by $57 
million. I worked in committee and on the floor to deliver $145 million 
more for Hanford than the President's budget. Then in fiscal year 2003, 
the Bush administration tried to cut Hanford funding by $300 million. 
They also tried to hold our cleanup dollars hostage unless we would 
jump through the hoops they set out for us. With my support, the Senate 
rejected the White House's misguided attempts. And through my work on 
the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, instead of a $300 
million cut, we added $433 million to the President's budget for 
Hanford.
  Time and again I have used my position on the Budget Committee and 
the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee to protect my State, 
and I have gone toe to toe with this administration over nuclear 
cleanup. In February of 2002, I sharply questioned the President's 
budget director on their plans to shortchange Hanford. In April of 
2002, I chaired a hearing of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee to review the Bush administration's work at Hanford and 
other sites. So don't think for a minute that we in Washington State 
are going to accept these attacks on our ability to get a fast and 
thorough cleanup of the nuclear waste that is at Hanford.
  For more than a year, the Department of Energy has been trying to 
change the ground rules so it can leave more waste untreated, declare 
victory, and walk away from our Nation's most contaminated nuclear 
sites. They tried to do it in the courts, and they lost. Today they are 
trying to do it on the floor of the Senate.
  As my colleagues know, I have been raising warning flags about this 
effort by the administration for many

[[Page 11477]]

months. I warned about it in August of last year. In September, upon 
passage of the energy and water bill, I once again raised concerns 
about this matter. But this attempt is part of a much longer and 
disturbing effort.
  I want to take a few minutes to review the history because it shows 
an administration that is venturing far outside the standard practice 
in ways that threaten my State and many others.
  Let me first offer some background on the Department of Defense bill 
that is before the Senate. The underlying bill contains two provisions 
dealing with high-level nuclear waste and the Department of Energy's 
authority for cleaning up nuclear waste sites in our country. One 
provision seeks to withhold funding from States that don't agree to 
give up their regulatory oversight of certain high-level waste. The 
second provision deals directly with the cleanup of the Savannah River 
site in South Carolina. But in reality, it has serious implications for 
every nuclear waste site in the country.
  The Department of Energy is making a great deal of noise about a 
court case it lost. The DOE is claiming it cannot proceed with cleanup 
sites in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington State until legislation 
is passed that essentially overturns that court's decision.
  I believe it is important to look at how we came to this position 
today, because it clearly illustrates how DOE has refused good-faith 
offers to resolve this issue between the original litigants, six 
States, and the Department. So let me give you all a short history of 
how the issue developed.
  In 1999, the Department of Energy issued regulations giving itself 
broad authority to reclassify nuclear waste. Essentially, the 
Department wanted to make unilateral decisions about what it needed to 
treat and remove from leaking underground storage tanks and what waste 
it could leave in the ground forever. This would be a dramatic 
departure from our current system where DOE must work with State and 
Federal regulators on such matters.
  To prevent that type of game playing, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council brought a lawsuit against the Department of Energy in Idaho 
district court. Before that case went to trial, the NRDC and the States 
offered to settle the issue. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy 
did not appear to take that effort seriously, and they rejected that 
cooperative approach. This is an important point. When the NRDC and the 
States offered to work out these issues outside of the court system, 
DOE rejected their offer. So the case went forward and DOE lost. They 
lost in July of 2003.
  One would expect at this point that DOE would go back to the 
plaintiff and the States to settle the issues. But that is not what 
happened. Instead, the Department appealed to the ninth circuit and 
immediately came running here to Congress asking for legislation to do 
what the Idaho court had rejected.
  Shortly after that decision, the Idaho district court sent out an 
order asking parties to consider mediation. The NRDC and the States 
quickly agreed to the court's request. Amazingly, DOE rejected the 
court's request. I believe this is an absolutely critical point because 
it demonstrates the Department has never approached this issue with a 
mindset open to considering the States' concerns or those of the 
winning plaintiff. This is the second time DOE rejected offers by other 
interested parties to cooperatively address this issue. This was a 
tremendous opportunity to try and reach broad consensus, and DOE passed 
it up. The court's mediation offer would have had a neutral court-
appointed mediator and a very good forum for resolving differences. In 
fact, this could still happen, and it should.
  My point in walking through the history of the issue is to highlight 
the fact that the Department of Energy has had many opportunities to 
resolve this issue with the States and with the original litigants. It 
rejected State offers to resolve issues before litigation went forward. 
And more amazingly, it rejected the Idaho district court's request for 
parties to use mediation after it lost the case. The States and 
litigants accepted the court's offer. DOE rejected it, and that is 
inexcusable. Bluntly, to me, it appears that DOE has allowed this issue 
to be taken over by its legal people.
  Recently environmental management Assistant Secretary Jesse Roberson 
testified to us that DOE and Washington State have agreed upon a plan 
for cleaning up the tanks, and that is largely correct. My State is 
very eager to work through this and for this work to proceed. The fact 
is DOE seems to be the only one that feels new legislation is needed. 
It is not. The original litigants and States want to proceed with 
cleanup and don't believe the Idaho district court ruling presents any 
obstacles.
  Unfortunately, this tactic of fighting the states and trying to do an 
``end run'' around the other partners in the cleanup is not new for 
this administration. The truth is that the fastest, most effective way 
to clean up these sites is for the DOE to work in partnership with the 
states and Federal regulators. Time and time again, however, this 
administration has tried to go it alone to the detriment of the 
residents who live near these contaminated sites.
  The Department of Energy needs to get back to working in partnership 
with the states and federal regulators. A unilateral approach will 
simply cost more money and will only create further delays.
  Governor Kempthorn of Idaho and Governor Locke of Washington are both 
opposed to the legislative language currently in the underlying bill. 
In fact, I have a letter last month from Governor Locke of Washington 
state outlining his concerns.
  For years, Senators and Congressmen with these waste sites located in 
their states and districts have had to fight tooth and nail to get 
adequate funding to ensure cleanup of these sites. Further, as a group 
we have had to fight back simplistic notions of erecting fences and 
calling the sites clean and safe. This constant struggle on behalf of 
our States and districts brought together bi-partisan groups of Members 
in both the House and Senate to fight on these issues.
  The House and Senate Nuclear Waste Cleanup caucuses have made a 
tremendous difference in how the administration and our fellow 
congressional members view the cleanup program. I believe the strength 
of these caucuses have been our unity and commitment to protect our 
state and citizens interests in cleanup. We have worked together to 
make sure the federal government lives up to its responsibility to 
clean up these sites. But the language in this bill is a license for 
the federal government to walk away from those very responsibilities. 
Leaving more waste permanently in the ground is not a real cleanup.
  What should be of equal concern to every member of this body is the 
attempt to make such a dramatic legislative end run around the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act without any hearing. This is a real, substantive 
weakening of a carefully crafted law.
  Yet, we are weakening it without any broad consensus in this body, 
any hearing before a Senate committee, or any mark-up before the 
committee of jurisdiction--the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  I propose to my colleagues that we--remove the offensive language in 
the underlying bill, allow cleanup to proceed at all three sites, and 
then set about carefully considering any new legislation.
  We need more time to address this issue in a more thoughtful manner. 
There is plenty of time for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
to hold a hearing on this issue and move consensus legislation if 
necessary. We should not give in to DOE's efforts to leverage out of 
Congress bad policy that gives away the legal protections our states 
and citizens have currently.
  The blatant attempt by DOE to withhold funding and stop work should 
not be accepted by this Congress. Six States have filed an amicus brief 
opposing DOE's efforts. The Governors of Idaho and Washington object to 
DOE's efforts. The House has not accepted DOE's language.
  I urge my colleagues to support our States and citizens, uphold the 
Federal Government's responsibility to full and

[[Page 11478]]

real cleanup, and not reward DOE's unilateral approach to cleanup. This 
isn't just about court orders and bureaucratic agreements. This is an 
obligation that we have to communities in my state that produced the 
plutonium that helped our country win World War II and the cold war.
  And there is no way that I am going to let the Bush administration or 
the Department of Energy or Senators from other States do things that 
threaten the families I represent.
  I have got a message for anyone who tries to threaten my State and 
force us to accept a lower standard for cleanup. Don't you dare try to 
tie our hands as we work to protect our communities. The only way we 
are going to clean it up--quickly and thoroughly is through a real 
partnership with all of the players. I urge the Department of Energy to 
get back to its job of cleaning up the waste, rather than wasting 
valuable time seeking help from Congress over a court case that it 
lost.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the administration's approach and 
support this amendment. Don't tie the hands of communities who are 
working hard to clean up nuclear waste. Don't reward the Department of 
Energy's heavy-handed tactics. Don't leave the families I represent 
with untreated waste that threatens their health and safety.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I want to weigh in on this issue and try to 
bring clarity to what it comes down to. As has been said by virtually 
every speaker today, this issue was caused as a result of the outcome 
of a lawsuit in Idaho with regard to the authority and jurisdiction and 
prerogatives of the Department of Energy in managing high-level waste 
as a result of reprocessing.
  When the court case came down the way it did, it threw into question 
the manner in which the Department of Energy would proceed with its 
cleanup operations in three States--Washington, Idaho, and South 
Carolina. There are people on all sides of that issue. Some say it is 
clear what they have to do. There are those who say it is unclear. 
There are those who say we can find clarity if we take some time to 
work it through between the States and the DOE.
  The bottom line is there was an issue. As a result of this issue, the 
question of funding availability for the ongoing cleanup became 
paramount. It was the DOE's position, as taken by the Office of 
Management and Budget, that if we didn't have a clear path forward on 
these cleanups, approximately $350 million that would have been 
available and was authorized and appropriated for cleanup in these 
three States would not be available in the next year. So the first 
urgent hurdle that came up was we had to make clear that the cleanup 
had to go on while we are trying to resolve these issues.
  The second issue that came up is, how do we resolve them? In that 
context, the Senator from South Carolina is exactly correct. Each of 
the three involved States--Idaho, my State; his State, South Carolina; 
and the State of Washington--got involved in negotiating with the 
Department of Energy. In fact, in the beginning, there was some concern 
from the States, as to whether they were going to be allowed to be 
engaged in these negotiations, and Senator Craig and I, from Idaho, and 
the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, made it clear we would 
take no steps that our States did not authorize and approve. We 
actually provided the incentive for these negotiations to take place.
  As we began moving forward, a dynamic developed where it became 
evident that the State of South Carolina, because of differences in the 
State of South Carolina's issues, was going to make it through to and 
reach an agreement with the Department of Energy. This agreement, as 
has already been indicated, is one supported by the Governor of South 
Carolina, the attorney general, the applicable environmental regulator, 
and many others in the State whose input the Senator from South 
Carolina has brought forth as part of the record.
  The States of Washington and Idaho, however, were not able to reach 
an agreement. Then we came forward and this bill came to the floor, and 
we have now found ourselves here with the State of South Carolina 
having an agreement, and the States of Idaho and Washington not having 
an agreement, and the question as to the money.
  A very important issue that seems to have immediately passed in the 
debate today is what happened in the beginning of the debate. Today, my 
amendment and the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, joined 
in by Senator Craig, were passed with a voice vote. Those amendments 
did a very critical and important thing. They made it clear the 
authorized cleanup dollars, the $350 million, were going to largely be 
able to be made available for continuing operations while we continue 
to try to work out these negotiations. I think that is a big part of 
the story today that needs to be made clear, because a big success for 
the country has been achieved already through those amendments.
  Secondly, we are now dealing with the question of the South Carolina 
language. When you boil down the debate today, it comes down to a 
question we have been focusing on in Idaho. And that is, does the South 
Carolina language create a precedent or some kind of a pressure which 
would cause us to have to deal with this issue in the State of Idaho or 
the State of Washington any differently?
  The answer to that is simply no. In fact, I think if there is any 
precedent in what is happening in this dynamic today, it is the 
opposite, because the State of Idaho, Senator Craig, and I made it very 
clear to the committee, to the Department of Energy, and to everyone--
and Senator Graham of South Carolina joined us in making it clear--
there would be no language in this bill relating to the State of Idaho 
unless and until the State of Idaho agreed to such language and Idaho's 
Senators brought that language forward. That is why we have very clear 
language in the bill that says the language that deals with South 
Carolina deals with South Carolina only.
  Having said that, there still has been a debate promulgated around 
the country, and it is raging in Idaho with regard to this very issue. 
Is there any precedential value in the South Carolina language that 
would cause a threat to any other State, particularly Idaho or 
Washington?
  Senator Craig and I strongly believe the answer to that is no, but 
there is a question about it. Idaho's Governor, Governor Kempthorne, 
has been quoted on this floor as raising the question. So Senator Craig 
and I, working with the Senator from South Carolina and other Senators, 
decided we would make it ironclad clear, if it was not so clear 
already.
  This morning, before this whole debate began, I asked unanimous 
consent to bring a further amendment that would have made it crystal 
clear, if it is not already crystal clear, that there is no 
precedential value here. Let me say before I go through what this 
amendment is, we believe it was crystal clear already in the statutory 
language, and Senator Graham, Senator Craig, and I and others have made 
it clear in the record developed in the debate on this bill that there 
is no precedential impact of this language because each State is 
dealing with its own circumstances and working out its own solutions 
with the Department of Energy.
  Having said that, here is the language, frankly, we were not given 
unanimous consent to put into the bill this morning. The language would 
have said:

       Nothing in this section shall alter or jeopardize the full 
     implementation of the settlement agreement entered into by 
     the United States with the State of Idaho. . . .

  And then there is a description of that agreement.

       Or the Hanford Federal facility agreement and consent 
     order, or the Federal facility agreement with the State of 
     Idaho.
       Furthermore, nothing in this section establishes any 
     precedent or is binding on the States of Idaho, Washington, 
     or any other State for the management, storage, treatment, 
     and disposition of radioactive and hazardous materials.

  We were stopped this morning from getting unanimous consent--I still 
do

[[Page 11479]]

not understand why--we were stopped this morning from getting unanimous 
consent to put this amendment into the amendment we adopted earlier 
dealing with the funding stream. That is not going to stop us from 
moving this language in an amendment and putting it on the bill to make 
it very clear to anybody who still has any doubt that there is no 
intention here of creating any kind of precedent or pressure with 
regard to any other State.
  I want to make it very clear we have now provided this language to 
the desk in the form of an amendment. That amendment will immediately 
follow the action on this vote with regard to the amendment of the 
Senator from Washington. Presuming that we still have an opportunity 
because of the vote, we will proceed with this amendment to make it 
very clear to anybody who has any lingering doubts that this Congress 
has no intention and this statutory language is not intended to create 
any precedential pressure or value, whether it be in court or in 
legislative negotiations, with regard to how Idaho, Washington, or, 
frankly, any other State will negotiate with the Department of Energy.
  It should be absolutely ironclad clear already, but Senator Craig and 
I worked with our Governor, and he is supportive of this effort to 
resolve this issue, and we are going to make it very clear to the 
Nation that this debate over whether there is some precedential value 
here is simply a debate that is contrived to object to allowing South 
Carolina to reach its own solution.
  It seems to me as we approach this issue, we must recognize that 
nothing will happen with regard to the management of radioactive 
material in the States of Idaho or Washington or, frankly, South 
Carolina, for that matter, unless and until those States agree. That is 
why Senator Craig and I have been on this floor advocating States 
rights and why we will continue to do so.
  Senator Craig and I have made a very strong, a very clear position to 
the administration and to this Congress, which is that our Idaho 
agreement--which, by the way, was entered into in 1995 and ratified by 
this Congress--will not be weakened or altered or modified, and that no 
agreement will be reached on these management issues regarding 
radioactive materials and hazardous waste unless and until the State of 
Idaho agrees to that solution. Those two principles are hard rock, base 
positions Senator Craig and I have made very clear.
  Like I say, if there is any question about what the precedent of 
these proceedings means, the precedent is that Senator Craig and I will 
not allow--we will not allow--this Congress to move forward with these 
kinds of issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Senator for this time. I encourage us to 
support the efforts to make certain these things will move forward and 
particularly when we bring this amendment that we were not allowed to 
bring this morning, we encourage the entire Senate to support it to 
help make this issue crystal clear to anyone who has lingering doubts.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
occur in relation to the Cantwell amendment at 2:10 p.m. today, with 
the remaining time until then divided so Senator Cantwell controls her 
remaining time and the remaining time under the control of Senator 
Allard or his designee.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, if I can ask the Chair, how 
much time does the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 33 minutes, 
and the Senator from Colorado has 75\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished manager of the bill, you are 
probably going to have about 10 minutes on your side.
  Mr. ALLARD. We have one speaker remaining.
  Mr. REID. No objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield me 10 minutes?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I yield the Senator from Michigan 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Department of Energy has over 100 
million gallons of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 
underground storage tanks, many of which are leaking. The Department of 
Energy and its predecessors have been generating and storing this high-
level radioactive waste for 50 years.
  The high-level radioactive waste is stored basically at three sites--
Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington. It was generated by years of 
reprocessing nuclear reactor fuels to recover plutonium and highly 
enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons and other defense purposes.
  The DOE has a small amount of highly radioactive waste stored in two 
tanks in New York that was generated as a result of a failed effort to 
process spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors.
  At the time the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was debated, the Department 
of Energy wanted the ability to reclassify high-level radioactive 
waste, including sludge, to low-level or waste incidental to 
reprocessing, for example. Congress denied this authority to the 
Department of Energy when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was adopted.
  The high-level radioactive waste that is stored in the Department of 
Energy tanks is highly radioactive. According to the State of South 
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Quality, the 37 million 
gallons of high-level radioactive waste at the Savannah River site 
contain 426 million curies of radioactivity.
  The Department of Energy was required under its obligation to clean 
up the nuclear weapons complex to pump the liquid waste out of those 
tanks. The layer of sludge, semihard material that was generated over 
the years as solids in the waste that sank to the bottom of the tanks, 
was included. It is to be left if the DOE has its way. They would like 
to leave that sludge in the tanks forever. They want to cover the 
solids with grout and declare the tanks are cleaned up. But by law, by 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, that sludge is high-level radioactive 
waste and, as such, must be disposed of as high-level radioactive 
waste.
  This sludge accounts for only 8 percent of the volume of material in 
the tanks, but it accounts for over half of the radioactivity. So under 
the DOE plan, over half of the radioactivity in the tanks at Savannah 
River would remain in the ground, covered by grout, presumably forever.
  Again, this sludge is high-level radioactive waste as defined in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. So for the Department of Energy to succeed in 
leaving the sludge at the bottom of the tanks, the waste has to somehow 
or another be redefined. So they issued an order to DOE under which it 
gave itself the authority to reclassify high-level radioactive waste. 
That way it could leave the sludge in the tanks.
  Under that order, the Department of Energy would have reclassified 
the high-level radioactive waste in the tank--the sludge--either as 
low-level radioactive waste or as waste incidental to reprocessing 
activities. By issuing that order, the Department of Energy sought to 
give itself what Congress had previously denied it, which was the 
authority to reclassify high-level radioactive waste.
  So the lawsuit began with the Natural Resources Defense Council suing 
the Department of Energy in Federal district court in Idaho, claiming 
that the Department of Energy did not have the authority to reclassify 
high-level radioactive waste and that the sludge, as high-level 
radioactive waste, had to be disposed of in an NRC licensed geologic 
depository. The States of South Carolina, New York, Washington, and 
Idaho, the States where the waste is stored, and other States, filed 
friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense 
Council. The Federal district court in Idaho ruled in favor of the 
States and against the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy 
has appealed that decision.

[[Page 11480]]

  The Department of Energy, in an effort to force States to accept the 
notion that it should be allowed to reclassify waste, has determined in 
its budget request to hold hostage the funds that were to be used to 
pump the liquid waste from the tanks until the States resolved the 
lawsuit in the DOE's favor or that there would be legislation giving 
the DOE the authority to reclassify the high-level radioactive waste.
  Senator Cantwell's amendment would strike the section in the bill 
that would allow the Department of Energy to ignore the law. The law 
says it is high-level radioactive waste.
  Section 3116 in the bill has many important provisions, but there are 
not six more important words in this section than the words 
``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' What that means is that 
notwithstanding the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or perhaps a number of 
other environmental laws, the Department of Energy is allowed to enter 
into contracts and agreements such as they have with the State of South 
Carolina.
  Now, one can quibble as to whether that is an amendment of the law. I 
believe it has been argued on the floor of the Senate today that this 
language in 3116 does not amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. One can 
perhaps argue that, but it is a quibble because the law or the section 
we are talking about by its very words allows the Department of Energy 
to ignore the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Whether that constitutes an 
amendment is not the point. It is an effective amendment of the law for 
another law to come along and say one can ignore the first law. That is 
what this language does. It says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to 
     material stored at a Department of Energy site at which 
     activities are regulated by the State pursuant to approved 
     closure plans or permits issued by the State, high-level 
     radioactive waste does not include radioactive material 
     resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel that 
     the Secretary of Energy determines . . .

  Then they go 1, 2, 3, 4, which obviously the Secretary of Energy has 
already determined. That is what the issue is all about. It is whether 
we are going to maintain language in the bill which says that the law 
which exists as to what constitutes high-level nuclear waste can be 
ignored and that the Department of Energy is authorized to spend all 
the money in this bill--$350 million--in carrying out activities which 
would be in violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, except for the 
fact that section 3116 says, ``notwithstanding any other provision of 
law.''
  The heart of this matter is that this language in the bill, unless it 
is stricken, authorizes the Department of Energy to spend all of the 
money we provide on activities which are inconsistent with the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act. We should not be authorizing the Department of Energy 
to ignore the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by spending money pursuant to an 
agreement with South Carolina which is inconsistent with the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act, activities which are not allowed by the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act.
  So those words, which sound awfully legalistic--and I guess they 
are--``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' tell the 
Department of Energy they are hereby authorized to ignore the law that 
Congress wrote.
  The Department of Energy and its predecessor tried to get the very 
authority that it now would have by contract if we approve that 
contract, notwithstanding the provision of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
which this Congress adopted and adopted very consciously to make sure 
that the waste--sludge--was included in high-level nuclear waste.
  Finally, this language was debated quite heatedly in our markup at 
committee. There were a couple of close votes that were cast. In my 
judgment, the Senate Armed Services Committee is not the place where we 
either should be amending the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or authorizing 
the Department of Energy to ignore the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I, 
therefore, support the Cantwell amendment and hope that this Senate 
adopts the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on May 20, 2004, there was some question 
whether the Senate Armed Services Committee was the correct committee 
of jurisdiction to consider the matter of cleaning up and closing tanks 
filled with defense nuclear waste.
  During the discussion on May 20, 2004, there were to have been 
printed in the Record materials including the President's budget 
request, appropriations acts, and authorization acts, which prove, 
irrefutably, that the funds for the cleanup and closure of the nuclear 
waste tanks at the Hanford Site in Washington, Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site 
in South Carolina, are appropriately within the jurisdiction of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee.
  I will ask that this material be printed in the Record, today.
  Additionally, I am including the pertinent portions of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate regarding committee jurisdiction. Listed under the 
section on the Committee on Armed Services it expressly includes ``the 
national security aspects of nuclear energy;'' under the section on the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources it expressly includes 
``nonmilitary development of nuclear energy;'' and under the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works it expressly includes ``nonmilitary 
environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy.'' I believe 
these Rules show clearly and unambiguously that the Senate Armed 
Services Committee is the proper committee to consider defense nuclear 
waste cleanup issues.
  Finally, it is worth noting that, in 1982, the portion of the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act dealing with defense nuclear waste was sent to the 
Senate Armed Services Committee for consideration.
  For all of these reasons, I assert that the Senate Armed Services 
Committee is the correct committee to consider cleanup and closure 
activities concerning defense nuclear waste.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Standing Rules of the Senate

       (c)(1) Committee on Armed Services, to which committee 
     shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, 
     petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the 
     following subjects:
       1. Aeronautical and space activities peculiar to or 
     primarily associated with the development of weapons systems 
     or military operations.
       2. Common defense.
       3. Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the 
     Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force, 
     generally.
       4. Maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, including 
     administration, sanitation, and government of the Canal Zone.
       5. Military research and development.
       6. National security aspects of nuclear energy.
       7. Naval petroleum reserves, except those in Alaska.
       8. Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and 
     privileges of members of the Armed Forces, including overseas 
     education of civilian and military dependents.
       9. Selective service system.
       10. Strategic and critical materials necessary for the 
     common defense.
       (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a 
     comprehensive basis, matters relating to the common defense 
     policy of the United States, and report thereon from time to 
     time.
       (g)(1) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which 
     committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, 
     messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to 
     the following subjects:
       1. Coal production, distribution, and utilization.
       2. Energy policy.
       3. Energy regulation and conservation.
       4. Energy related aspects of deepwater ports.
       5. Energy research and development.
       6. Extraction of minerals from oceans and Outer Continental 
     Shelf lands.
       7. Hydroelectric power, irrigation, and reclamation.
       8. Mining education and research.
       9. Mining, mineral lands, mining claims, and mineral 
     conservation.
       10. National parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, 
     wild and scenic rivers, historical sites, military parks and 
     battlefields, and on the public domain, preservation of 
     prehistoric ruins and objects of interest.
       11. Naval petroleum reserves in Alaska.
       12. Nonmilitary development of nuclear energy.
       13. Oil and gas production and distribution.
       14. Public lands and forests, including farming and grazing 
     thereon, and mineral extraction therefrom.

[[Page 11481]]


       15. Solar energy systems.
       16. Territorial possessions of the United States, including 
     trusteeships.
       (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a 
     comprehensive basis, matters relating to energy and resources 
     development, and report thereon from time to time.
       (h)(1) Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which 
     committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, 
     messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to 
     the following subjects:
       1. Air pollution.
       2. Construction and maintenance of highways.
       3. Environmental aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands.
       4. Environmental effects of toxic substances, other than 
     pesticides.
       5. Environmental policy.
       6. Environmental research and development.
       7. Fisheries and wildlife.
       8. Flood control and improvements of rivers and harbors, 
     including environmental aspects of deepwater ports.
       9. Noise pollution.
       10. Nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of 
     nuclear energy.
       11. Ocean dumping.
       12. Public buildings and improved grounds of the United 
     States generally, including Federal buildings in the District 
     of Columbia.
       13. Public works, bridges, and dams.
       14. Regional economic development.
       15. Solid waste disposal and recycling.
       16. Water pollution.
       17. Water resources.
       (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a 
     comprehensive basis, matters relating to environmental 
     protection and resource utilization and conservation, and 
     report thereon from time to time.
                                  ____


       Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request


                    Proposed Appropriation Language

       For the Department of Energy expenses, including the 
     purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
     equipment and other expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense site acceleration completion activities and 
     classified activities in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; [$5,651,062,000] 
     $5,620,837,000, to remain available until expended[; Provided 
     that the Secretary of Energy is directed to use $1,000,000 of 
     the funds provided for regulatory and technical assistance to 
     the State of New Mexico, to amend the existing Waste 
     Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Permit to comply with 
     the Provision of section 310 of the Act]. (Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act 2004.)


                         explanation of change

       None.

                                           FUNDING PROFILE BY PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      FY 2003         FY 2004                         FY 2004
                                    comparable       original         FY 2004       comparable        FY 2005
                                   appropriation   appropriation    adjustments    appropriation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Site acceleration
 Completion:
    2006 Accelerated Completions       1,234,037       1,248,453          -9,435       1,239,018       1,251,799
    2012 Accelerated Completions       2,102,613       2,236,252         -36,914       2,199,338       2,150,641
    2035 Accelerated Completions       1,811,563       1,929,536         -11,161       1,918,375       1,893,339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This PBS supports the mission of the high-level waste 
     program, at the Savannah River Site, to safely and 
     efficiently treat, stabilize, and dispose of approximately 37 
     million gallons of legacy highly radioactive waste. This 
     waste is stored in 49 underground storage tanks 
     (approximately 33.1 million gallons of radioactive salt waste 
     and 3.9 million gallons of radioactive sludge waste). In 
     addition, the Savannah River Site will: reduce the volume of 
     high-level waste by evaporation to ensure that storage tank 
     space is available to receive additional legacy waste volume 
     from on-going nuclear material stabilization and waste 
     processing activities; pretreat the high-level waste by 
     segregating the waste into sludge, low curie salt, low curie 
     salt with higher actinide content, and high curie salt with 
     higher actinide content allowing less costly treatment 
     methods to be used on the waste containing lower curie levels 
     (radioactivity) and shorter lived radionuclides; vitrify 
     sludge and high curie/high actinide high-level waste into 
     canisters and then store and ship the canisters to the 
     Federal Repository for final disposal; treat and dispose the 
     low-level waste fraction resulting from high-level waste 
     pretreatment as Saltstone grout; treat and discharge 
     evaporator overheads through the effluent treat facility; 
     empty and permanently close in place using grout all high-
     level waste tanks and support systems; and ensure that risks 
     to the environment and human health and safety from high-
     level waste operations are eliminated or reduced to 
     acceptable levels.
       The end-state of this project will result in the permanent 
     disposal of all the liquid high-level waste currently stored 
     at the Savannah River Site as well as all legacy high-level 
     waste from planned nuclear materials stabilization activities 
     by FY 2019. It will also result in the permanent closure of 
     the remaining 49 underground storage tanks by FY 2020 (two of 
     the original 51 tanks have already been closed in place in FY 
     1997 using grout).
       Because of uncertainties associated with a recent court 
     ruling that finds the Department's plans to reclassify some 
     high-level waste (Waste Incidental to Reprocessing) in 
     violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Department 
     believes it is inadvisable to proceed with certain planned FY 
     2005 activities at this time. Therefore, those activities 
     that are impacted by the court decision are presented in the 
     High-Level Waste Proposal under the Defense Site Acceleration 
     Completion appropriation including both the design and 
     initial construction of the Salt Waste Processing Facility. 
     Funding for this project will be requested only at such time 
     as the legal issue is resolved.
       In FY 2003 and FY 2004 this PBS included appropriations of 
     $4,842,000 and $51,196,000, respectively, for design of the 
     Salt Waste Processing Facility under line-item 03-D-414, 
     Project Engineering and Design. Additionally, $20,139,000 was 
     appropriated in FY 2004 and $43,827,000 is requested in FY 
     2005 for the construction of the Glass Waste Storage Building 
     #2, line-item 04-D-408.
  In FY 2005, the following activities are planned to support the 
accelerated cleanup of the Savannah River Site.

       Fill 250 canisters with vitrified waste, complete 
     fabrication of Melter Number 3, and place procurement 
     contracts for Melter Number 4 at the Defense Waste Processing 
     Facility.
       Continue preparation of Sludge Batch 4 with the removal of 
     bulk waste from three High-Level Waste tanks.
       In support of the High-Level Waste system, continue 
     capacity-based operation of the H and F Tank Farm Disposition 
     and Effluent Treatment Projects.
       Continue construction of an additional high-level waste 
     canister storage facility (Glass Waste Storage Building II) 
     in support of accelerated Defense Waste Processing Facility 
     production.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Cumulative                        FY 2005
            Metrics               FY 2003    FY 2004    FY 2005    complete  FY     Life-cycle       complete
                                                                       2005          quantity        (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Waste in Inventory                0      1,300      1,900           3,200          33,100              10
 Eliminated (thousands of
 gallons)......................
Liquid Waste Tanks Closed                0          2          0               4              51               8
 (Number of Tanks).............
High-Level Waste Packaged for          115        250        250           1,952           5,060              39
 Final Disposition (Number of
 Containers)...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Key Accomplishments (FY 2003)/Planned Milestones (FY 2004/
     FY 2005).
       Completed installation of Tank 18 bulk waste removal 
     equipment (FY 2003).
       Completed D&R of the neutralization dike and tanks at the 
     2H Evaporator and returned Tank 37 to service as a 
     concentrate receipt tank for the 3H Evaporator (FY 2003).
       Completed Tank 51 receipt of americium/curium material from 
     F-Canyon (FY 2003).
       Replaced the Defense Waste Processing Facility Glass 
     Melter, and returned the Defense Waste Processing Facility to 
     canister production (FY 2003).
       Implemented the 10 CFR 830 Documented Safety Analysis for 
     the High-Level Waste Tank Farms (FY 2003).
       Restored Building 512S to operability (FY 2003).
       Produced 115 canisters of vitrified high-level waste (FY 
     2003).
       Regulatory close two high-level waste tanks (Tanks 18 and 
     19), which completes the closure of the first tank grouping 
     (September 2004).

[[Page 11482]]

       Produce 250 canisters of vitrified high-level waste 
     (September 2004).
       Prepare and feed Sludge Batch 3 to the Defense Waste 
     Processing Facility (September 2004).
       Complete 512-S modifications necessary to support Actinide 
     Removal Salt Processing and begin hot operations with salt 
     solutions (September 2004).
       Complete the conceptual design for an optimal scale Salt 
     Waste Processing Facility (September 2004).
       Complete the Tank II Waste Removal Project and Bulk Waste 
     Removal from Tank II to accelerate the preparation of Sludge 
     Batch 4 (September 2004).
       Complete the dissolution of low curie salt in Tank 41 
     (September 2004).
       Pretreat and process 1,300,000 gallons of low-level 
     radioactive salt waste into saltstone grout (September 2004).
       Initiate construction of an additional high-level waste 
     canister storage facility (Glass Waste Storage Building II) 
     (September 2004).
       Initiate dissolution of low curie salt in Tank 29 
     (September 2004).
       Produce 250 canisters of vitrified high-level waste 
     (September 2005).
       Begin preparing tanks 4 and 6 for bulk waste removal 
     (September 2005).
       Complete bulk waste removal in Tank 5 (September 2005).
       Prepare Sludge Batch 4 and initiate preparation of Sludge 
     Batch 5 (September 2005).
                                  ____


 Fiscal Year 2005 Appendix of the U.S. Government--Department of Energy


                  defense site acceleration completion

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense site 
     acceleration completion activities, and classified activities 
     in carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion; [$5,651,062,000] $5,620,837,000, to remain 
     available until expended[: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Energy is directed to use $1,000,000 of the funds provided 
     for regulatory and technical assistance to the State of New 
     Mexico, to amend the existing WIPP Hazardous Waste Permit to 
     comply with the provisions of section 310 of this Act]. 
     (Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004.)
       2006 Accelerated Completions.--Provides funding for 
     completing cleanup and closing down facilities contaminated 
     as a result of nuclear weapons production. This account 
     includes all geographic sites with an accelerated cleanup 
     plan closure date of 2006 or earlier (such as Rocky Flats, 
     Fernald and Mound). In addition, this account provides 
     funding for Environmental Management (EM) sites where overall 
     site cleanup will not be complete by 2006 but cleanup 
     projects within a site (for example, spent fuel removal, all 
     transuranic (TRU) waste shipped off-site) will be complete by 
     2006.
       2012 Accelerated Completions.--Provides funding for 
     completing cleanup and closing down facilities contaminated 
     as a result of nuclear weapons production. This account 
     includes all geographic sites with an accelerated cleanup 
     plan closure date of 2007 through 2012 (such as Pantex and 
     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory--Site 300). In 
     addition, this account provides funding for EM sites where 
     overall site cleanup will not be complete by 2012 but cleanup 
     projects within a site (for example, spent fuel removal and 
     TRU waste shipped off-site) will be complete by 2012.
       2035 Accelerated Completions.--Provides funding for 
     completing cleanup and closing down facilities contaminated 
     as a result of nuclear weapons production. This account 
     provides funding for site closures and site specific cleanup 
     and closure projects that are expected to be completed after 
     2012. EM has established a goal of completing cleanup at all 
     its sites by 2035.
                                  ____


        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004


              defense environmental management (sec. 3102)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3102) that would 
     authorize $6.8 billion for the Department of Energy for 
     defense environmental management (EM) activities for fiscal 
     year 2004, including funds for defense site acceleration 
     completion and defense environmental services.
       The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 
     3102) that would authorize $6.8 billion for defense 
     environmental activities.
       The conferees agree to authorize $6.8 billion for defense 
     environmental management, the amounts of the budget request, 
     including $5.8 billion for defense site acceleration 
     completion and $995.2 million for defense environmental 
     services.
       The conferees support the continuing efforts of the 
     Department of Energy to accelerate cleanup at all of the 
     environmental management (EM) sites, which will result in 
     reducing risk to the environment, workers, and the community, 
     shortening cleanup schedules, and saving tens of billions of 
     dollars across the EM complex. The conferees also support a 
     policy that would take funds made available due to the 
     cleanup completion of Fernald, Mound, Rocky Flats and other 
     sites, and roll them into the remaining EM sites to help 
     accelerate their completion even sooner, if possible.
                                  ____


 Making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development for the Fiscal 
  Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes--Conference 
           Report--Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                    defense environmental management

       The conference agreement provides a total of $6,626,877,000 
     for Defense Environmental Management instead of 
     $6,748,457,000 as proposed by the House and $6,743,045,000 as 
     proposed by the Senate. This funding is provided in two 
     separate appropriations: $5,651,062,000 for Defense Site 
     acceleration Completion and $991,144,000 for Defense 
     Environmental Services, and also includes a rescission of 
     $15,329,000 from the Defense Environmental Management 
     Privatization account.


                  defense site acceleration completion

       The conference agreement provides $5,651,062,000 for 
     defense site acceleration completion, instead of 
     $5,758,278,000 as proposed by the House and $5,770,695,000 as 
     proposed by the Senate.
       Accelerated Completions 2006.--The conference agreement 
     provides $1,248,453,000, an increase of $3,282,000 over the 
     request to reflect the adjustment for accelerated Oak Ridge 
     cleanup activities.
       Accelerated Completions 2012.--The conference agreement 
     provides $2,236,252,000, an increase of $7,938,000 over the 
     request to reflect the adjustment for accelerated Oak Ridge 
     cleanup activities.
       Accelerated Completions 2035.--The conference agreement 
     provides $1,929,536,000, a reduction of $49,061,000 from the 
     budget request to reflect the adjustment for accelerated Oak 
     Ridge cleanup activities.
       From within available funds, the conferees direct the 
     Department to provide a total of $6,000,000 for worker 
     training programs and supporting communications 
     infrastructure, oversight, and management activities at the 
     Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response 
     Training and Education Center. The conferees direct the 
     Department to provide $8,500,000 for the Hazardous Waste 
     Worker Training Program from within available funds. The 
     conference agreement provides $750,000 from within available 
     funds to the State of Oregon for its oversight activities 
     related to the Hanford cleanup.
       The conferees direct the Department to pay its title V air 
     permitting fees at the Idaho National Laboratory consistent 
     with prior year levels, and to bring the Pit 9 litigation to 
     an end as expeditiously as possible. The conference agreement 
     includes the budget request of $1,356,000 for activities at 
     Amchitka Island, Alaska.
       Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Department's activities 
     at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) are primarily 
     funded under the Accelerated Completions 2035 subaccount 
     within the Defense Site Acceleration Completion account. From 
     within available funds for Accelerated Completions 2035, the 
     conferees direct the Department to provide an additional 
     $3,500,000 to the Carlsbad community for educational support, 
     infrastructure improvements, and related initiatives to 
     address the impacts of accelerated operations at WIPP and an 
     additional $1,500,000 to consolidate at Carlsbad all record 
     archives relevant to the operations of WIPP and the 
     transuranic waste in WIPP.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 8 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The long and short of this is that all three States--South Carolina, 
Idaho, and Washington--have been negotiating to define waste 
classification standards in their States for a long time.
  On January 26, 2004, Congressman Hastings, Senator Murray, and 
Senator Cantwell sent a letter to Governor Locke and Secretary Abraham 
that asked them to work together to resolve the ongoing dispute over 
waste classification. Please listen to what I just said. There has been 
a process in place in Washington since January 26 to try to find a way 
to reach an agreement with the Department of Energy to classify waste 
in that State so cleanup can move forward.
  The letter did not say, call Lindsey Graham from South Carolina and 
see if you can get his permission. It did not say, call Larry Craig and 
Mike Crapo. It said, call Spence Abraham and see if you all can work 
together.
  The Governor wrote back to the Deputy Secretary of Energy and said 
that

[[Page 11483]]

the Governor's chief of staff would be the point of contact for 
negotiations February 12, 2004. From mid-February to April 13, they 
have been sending drafts back and forth about how to define cleanup and 
what is clean in Hanford. They have been doing the same thing in Idaho. 
We have been doing the same thing in South Carolina. All of us have one 
thing in common: We oppose the Department of Energy's efforts to 
unilaterally determine what ``clean'' is and walk away.
  That is why we had the lawsuit. That is why South Carolina joined as 
a friend of the court. The letters my friend from Washington read, 
about South Carolina objecting to DOE's moving forward, was an 
objection to a unilateral process where DOE would have the final say 
about how to clean up the tanks and remove waste.
  All of us in all three States believe we should be involved. But it 
has never been the policy or the process where all three States have to 
agree to the same standard because, Members of the Senate, that is 
impossible to achieve because the waste scenario and the waste stream 
problems in Idaho are completely different.
  The film we are trying to leave behind in South Carolina, that inch 
and a quarter of film that will be left in South Carolina and not sent 
to Yucca Mountain, doesn't exist in the tanks in Idaho, and the tanks 
in Washington have a totally different design.
  Three States have been working in the defense arena to find a common 
ground with DOE to make sure the States don't get left holding the bag, 
and we also made sure no State can take over defining ``high-level 
radioactive waste.'' That stays with the Federal Government. But the 
agreement we have achieved said the State of South Carolina has the 
final permitting authority and you cannot leave those tanks in a 
condition that will hurt South Carolina.
  They are trying to do the same thing in Washington and Idaho. I hope 
they get there. But if they do get there, they are going to have to do 
the same thing I am doing today. They are going to need legislative 
language blessing that agreement. There will be an amendment of the 
Waste Policy Act. That is going to have to happen. In 1995, legislative 
language was brought to the Senate to bless an agreement Idaho achieved 
regarding another waste stream. That is going to have to happen. I hope 
I will be man enough, Senator enough, not to stand in the way. If the 
Governor of Idaho, the Governor of Washington, the attorney general, 
the environmental regulators, the chamber of commerce, the mayor of the 
Hanford community, the communities involved in Idaho--if they say we 
have a deal that doesn't affect or prejudice my State or change nuclear 
policy in any significant way, I hope I will say: Go forward; God bless 
you; I am glad you were able to reach an agreement to clean up your 
States because you fought very hard to win the cold war.
  For those who are worried about the safety issue in my State, I 
appreciate the concern. I did not make up this scenario. I am reacting 
to input from my State. I have been involved in the negotiations. They 
called me. They drafted the language and they have told me, and sent 
letters--the Governor and the environmental regulators: We have a deal, 
Lindsey, that we can live with. We have already closed up two tanks of 
the 51. So we know in South Carolina, unlike the other two sites, we 
can extract the liquid waste, grout the tank, and have it not affect 
the ground water because we have done it twice and we are trying to 
move forward at a faster rate.
  They are telling me: Lindsey, we have a deal that will allow us to 
clean up the tanks and get the liquid waste out 23 years ahead of 
schedule and save $16 billion.
  I say to my colleagues, I cannot make that happen unless you allow it 
to happen. If it does happen in Idaho and it does happen in Washington, 
and I believe it will one day, you are going to have to do the same 
thing for those States.
  To my friends in New York, the waste stream you are discussing and 
that you talked about on the floor is not remotely similar to the waste 
stream we are talking about here. This is defense waste.
  To my friends in Maine who have spent nuclear fuel, it is covered 
under a whole different section. Here is what you have to understand. 
If you have spent fuel rods in your State, defense waste has priority 
in Yucca Mountain. If we are going to insist the cleanup standards be 
beyond what good science says and we are going to take that extra 23 
years and spend that extra $23 billion, you are going to run out of 
space in Yucca Mountain to send your spent fuel.
  I say to my friend Senator Enzi, thank you. Every State has an 
obligation to help where it can. South Carolina can retain the film on 
the bottom of these tanks in a safe and sound manner, and it is not 
necessary to extract it, take 23 years, and spend $16 billion to send 
it to Nevada. We can safely take care of it in South Carolina. We have 
done it twice and we want to do it more so we can get this waste out of 
the tanks, because the biggest threat to my State and to all the States 
is seepage and leakage of the waste.
  Washington has a problem. Of all the States, Washington needs to 
reach agreement to make these tanks dry. I don't want to be a 
Washington. I don't want to look back 10 years from now and have this 
process slowed down to a crawl and my ground water get contaminated.
  The NRC has said this is safe and that what is left in the tank is no 
longer high-level waste; it meets the definition of low-level waste. 
About hearings, Senators Allard, Inhofe, Domenici, have been talking 
about the plans to clean up the tanks in three States for well over 4 
years. The Department of Energy has been working with each State with a 
separate cleanup plan for a long time. They have been negotiating with 
Washington since January. We have discussed how you would treat South 
Carolina, Idaho, and Washington through hearings in an exhaustive 
manner.
  If you make us have more hearings, I am going to be right back here 
asking you to bless this agreement because the agreement has been a 
collaborative process that has been going on for 2 years and all you 
are going to do is throw us in chaos because if we can veto each other, 
then we will never clean up. If you are insisting on a standard that 
fits all of these sites, it will never be reached.
  Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the transcripts from the 
Armed Services hearing of February 25, 2004--what we talked about, the 
waste cleanup process; Senator Domenici's Energy and Water Subcommittee 
hearing of March 31, 2004, same topics discussed; and pages 1 through 
47 of the EPW committee hearing of July 25, 2000.
  My colleagues, I need your help. I want to make sure the tanks don't 
leak. We have a sound plan that will not affect your States. It will 
only help mine. I want to help you. Please help me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do both sides have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents control 22\1/2\ minutes. The 
opponents of the amendment control 1 minute. Who yields time? The 
Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's 
characterization of this issue. I think we have had somewhat of a 
debate this morning. I think probably for most people, including my 
colleagues, what we have done is shown that this is a very complex 
issue, a very complicated issue, and that it needs more discussion than 
a few hours on the Senate floor, because what is at stake here is the 
lives of individuals who are living in these communities, whose ground 
water may be contaminated, whose safe drinking water in the future may 
be contaminated at levels that are not sustainable in these areas.
  Let's recap for a second where we have been in this debate, because I 
will have printed in the Record, for my colleagues to understand, the 
1989 agreement between Washington State and DOE, and the 1995 agreement 
between the State of Idaho and DOE on cleanup.

[[Page 11484]]

  Let me point out, we have agreements. We have agreements with the 
Department of Energy on cleanup. They are agreements that basically 
say: DOE, keep making progress on cleanup and please continue to follow 
the Federal statute. The issue at hand is that somehow my colleague 
from South Carolina has been persuaded by the Department of Energy--an 
argument the State of Washington refused to buy, I might add, an 
argument the State of Idaho refused to buy--that somehow cleanup means 
we have to reclassify waste.
  So, yes, States in this country have continued to push DOE on 
agreement. We had agreements on the books. It is unfortunate that DOE 
has not been able to be trusted to get cleanup done in a timely 
fashion. That is why States have continued to push them.
  Agreements are in place. And our State continues, as Idaho and South 
Carolina admit in a court filing that they do not trust DOE and that 
DOE should move forward and it doesn't need the sledge hammer of this 
legislation. That is South Carolina's own testimony in court and its 
own testimony to the Department of Energy in a letter.
  Why are we having this discussion then? We are having this discussion 
because, even though agreements are already in place and DOE is failing 
to live up to cleanup, DOE would like to now change the rules of the 
game and change the definition of high-level waste.
  If you think about it, the point of the Senator from South Carolina 
is that his State should have the right to agree with DOE to clean 
things up, and that he is not changing current law.
  If that were the case, why are we here arguing today? The Senator 
from South Carolina and DOE should just go and proceed. The reason they 
do not is because the Senator from South Carolina knows all too well 
that his language is changing current law and that he needs that change 
if DOE wants to leave high-level waste in the ground.
  The point is for all Americans to understand that nuclear waste in 
States such as Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina only have the 
authority to argue these issues about cleanup within the framework of a 
Federal statute. That Federal statute is the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  What the Senator from South Carolina is doing in the underlying bill 
is threatening the rights of States, including his own State, to 
protect itself from DOE as DOE reclassifies waste. It leaves our States 
at jeopardy. It leaves all States where there are nuclear facilities in 
jeopardy because of DOE's insistence that the nuclear waste policy 
definition of spent nuclear fuel does not have to meet the standard of 
high-level waste. It leaves all of these States with a debate with DOE 
that DOE can say this waste is no longer high level. We can transport 
it. We can do whatever we want with it. We can fill tanks with grout. 
It is a very dangerous precedent.
  The Senator is getting rid of the Federal framework. No State has the 
ability to negotiate on its own a Federal cleanup standard. Imagine if 
the State of Michigan discussed with EPA this is what the clean air 
standard should be for the State of Michigan? What if Florida and the 
EPA decided what safe drinking water standards are for the State of 
Florida? We have never operated that way.
  The Senator from South Carolina refuses to address that his State can 
only deal with leaving tank waste in the ground, which he is proposing 
we do, by changing the Federal standard. The Department of Defense 
authorization bill changes the definition of high-level waste. It is 
changing the Federal standard. It is then leaving those States subject 
to DOE's whim on how much ground waste and water pollution will be 
there in those tanks at Hanford, at Savannah River, and in Idaho.
  The Senator talks about contaminated ground water. His ground water 
in Savannah River is already contaminated. The ground water in 
Washington State at Hanford is already contaminated. There are other 
parts of the country with high-level contaminated waste.
  The question is, What are we going to do to hold DOE's feet to the 
fire to make sure they get this waste cleaned up? This body, for the 
last 3 years, has seen various changes at this administration level try 
to undermine current environmental standards and environmental law. The 
current environmental law of the day regarding nuclear waste is the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Senator's language in the underlying bill 
threatens that language.
  Washington State agreements, which have been fighting DOE to live up 
to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, will no longer be able to argue that 
effectively, nor will Idaho, unless we pass my amendment.
  My amendment specifically says we are not changing the definition of 
high-level waste but the Department of Energy needs to have dollars 
appropriated, which this bill authorizes, for $350 million of cleanup, 
and the DOE must spend that money on cleanup. We actually crafted that 
language with Senator Levin with the help and support of Governor 
Kempthorne of Idaho. We put the Kempthorne language in our amendment. 
Why did we do that? Because we wanted to be clear with the Kempthorne 
language that we were not going to be held hostage; Idaho, Washington, 
and even Savannah River were not going to be blackmailed by DOE to 
saying, they only get the cleanup dollars if, in fact, they agree to a 
lesser standard which allows us to leave more pollution in the ground 
water in your State. We refused to agree to this policy and be held 
hostage by DOE.
  The Senators from Idaho do not need any other language. They want 
their State protected on this issue. They want their dollars for 
cleanup protected. The Cantwell amendment protects the State of Idaho. 
I am sure that is what the response will be from the State of Idaho and 
the State of Washington and others as they look at this policy. It 
corrects onerous activities that happened when the Defense 
authorization bill moved through the Senate Armed Services Committee 
and marked up policy changes to environmental policy of which that 
committee does not have oversight.
  My colleagues can say we have had lots of debate about cleanup and 
lots of budget discussions. I don't think anyone can seriously stand in 
the Senate and say the change in definition of hazardous nuclear waste 
is the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is not. 
The Parliamentarian has already ruled on that. That is the jurisdiction 
of the Energy Committee.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are ignoring the hard 
facts. This is not about individual States having agreement; it is 
about changing the Federal standard for nuclear waste cleanup.
  This administration and DOE ought to be embarrassed. They are trying 
this sneaky process behind closed doors and putting language in that 
now we all have to come to the Senate and fight to take out.
  What Member wants to vote against the Defense authorization bill that 
has this language in it? What does this language have to do with troops 
in Afghanistan or troops in Iraq? What does it have to do with giving 
men and women the support they deserve to fight for our country? It is 
creating a controversy around change to a Federal policy that has not 
been debated.
  There is no Lindsey Graham bill or bill by any of my other colleagues 
that has the Graham language in it that was brought before the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee and debated. My colleagues are wrong on 
this.
  Let's see what the rest of America is saying about this because I 
guarantee this debate will not end today. It is very important the 
third parties that have looked at this issue have validated exactly 
what my colleagues on this side of the aisle are saying about this 
issue.
  In fact, the Savannah Morning News says:

       It's good for the government to save billions of dollars 
     and to clean up nuclear waste. But a money-saving plan that 
     does a poor job of tidying up is no bargain.

  The Minneapolis Star Tribune said:

       Quicker and cheaper can be valid considerations . . . but 
     only after the highest level of

[[Page 11485]]

     safety has been guaranteed. And those guarantees must satisfy 
     national standards, not the terms of a side deal.

  That is exactly what this is, a side deal between a State and an 
agency that has neglected its cleanup responsibilities for years. The 
court said they needed to move forward but not by changing the 
definition of high-level waste that they did not have, but move forward 
on the plans they have in place. This is a side deal.
  The Boston Globe said:

       If the Senate isn't careful, it could vote this week to 
     allow the Department of Energy to cover some of the nation's 
     most hazardous nuclear waste with grout instead of treating 
     it properly. . . . The Senate should strip the defense 
     spending bill of this toxic measure.

  The Oregonian, from another part of the country that is greatly 
impacted by this issue because of the Columbia River and the huge 
impact that river has, already with that plutonium leaked into the 
river, said:

       It's remotely possible that [this] policy is worth 
     debating, but this sneaky approach suggests the Department of 
     Energy isn't interested in a public discussion of the issue.

  What did the Seattle Times say? In our State, we have been battling 
DOE for years because they always want to take a shortcut. They always 
want to take a shortcut and say we can do it quicker. What are the 
Washington agreements about? The Washington agreements are about 
forcing DOE to live up to Federal cleanup standards. That is what the 
agreements are. In fact, they always try to get out of it. The Seattle 
Times wrote:

       The Senate should slap down a sneaky ploy . . . that would 
     give the Department of Energy the right to single-handedly 
     change the rules about how it handles highly radioactive 
     waste.

  The Washington Post took a look at this situation and said:

     . . . a situation in which states compete to reach private 
     agreements with the Energy Department and then rush to put 
     them into legislation is untenable.

  What did the Atlanta Journal Constitution say? It is a State that is 
affected by the Savannah River which flows into their State. The 
Savannah River already has pollution problems with radionuclides 
affecting fish and affecting safe drinking water conditions. It said:

     . . . words do matter, and some semantic contortions can be 
     dangerous. Recent efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy to 
     circumvent the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act by slipping 
     through a linguistic wormhole are an outrageous case in 
     point.

  What about the Omaha-World Herald? They know a little bit about this 
issue. They have debated the nuclear waste issue. They said:

       We hope Congress will listen to common-sense views . . . 
     and yank this terrible idea back out of the bill. It's not 
     merely wrongheaded; it would result in a hazard to the public 
     well-being.

  And there are newspapers in my State weighing in on this issue. The 
Tri-City Herald, which is in the heart of this cleanup effort at 
Hanford, the largest tank waste cleanup in the country, where we 
already have 1 million gallons of tank waste leaking in a plume that is 
an 80-square-mile area that is going to the Columbia River, said:

       Senators considering [this issue] should ask themselves 
     this: If reclassification really is such a great and worthy 
     idea, why isn't the Energy Department making the argument in 
     the light of day?

  If they really thought reclassifying waste was such a great idea, why 
don't they put a bill before this legislative body saying so, driving 
it through the normal channels and the normal process of legislation? 
They know they do not have this authority. They tried by their own 
executive administrative order to do it, and the courts told them they 
did not have the ability to do it. But instead of coming through the 
proper channels with a bill and legislation, they have chosen, instead, 
to sneak language into the Defense authorization bill--probably one of 
the most unpatriotic things I can think to do.
  These men and women gave a serious amount of their lives to fighting 
in World War II and the cold war by producing plutonium and giving us a 
tool to win in those areas. They did that in record time. Now they 
expect this country, just like businesses all across America, to clean 
up their waste. We expect the Federal Government to clean up their 
waste. We do not expect a short-end process where they say you can 
simply grout over nuclear radioactive waste and put sand and gravel on 
top of it and somehow stabilize the situation.
  So the Tri-City Herald said Senators should ask themselves this: If 
reclassification is such a great idea, why don't they make the argument 
in the light of day?
  What did the Idaho Statesman say? The Idaho Statesman said:

       The Energy Department's shameful record on this issue--

  Why would a paper like the Idaho Statesman say it is a ``shameful 
record''? Because it is true. DOE fails to live up, time and time 
again, to the process of moving forward, and so States have had to 
enter into agreements that comply with Federal law--not circumvent 
Federal law, but comply with Federal law--and hold DOE's feet to the 
fire and say: DOE, you must meet the Federal standard and move forward. 
So the Idaho Statesman said:

       The Energy Department's shameful record on this issue is 
     even more troubling. Remember recent history . . . Suggesting 
     there's no precedent--and no potential effect on Idaho--is 
     politically naive.

  That is from the Idaho Statesman.
  What did the Bangor Daily News say? Well, the Bangor Daily News said:

       The long-term implications of such an important change in 
     waste-storage policy are too serious to give the issue a free 
     ride in a spending bill.

  So we have heard from over 20 newspapers across America. My colleague 
from New York submitted editorials from both the New York Times and the 
Buffalo News. I talked about the Minneapolis Star earlier and their 
comments on this issue.
  Show me a newspaper in America that is saying this is a good policy. 
In the limited amount of time we have had to get this debate in front 
of the public, the public has basically, in these editorials and 
letters to the editors, raised serious questions about this policy, 
serious questions about why the Senate would be moving forward on this 
issue.
  As my colleague, the senior Senator from Washington, mentioned 
earlier, the House of Representatives, when posed with this question, 
figured it out and said: Listen, if this is such a good idea, let's 
have a study. Let's have a study and analysis of this issue and see 
exactly what people can come up with as far as science. Well, that is 
what is in the House version of this legislation--a study--because my 
colleagues over there understood that this was a change to Federal 
policy.
  So what about the underlying effects of this legislation if the 
Cantwell amendment is not adopted? The Cantwell amendment says two 
things: We are not changing the definition of what is high-level waste 
and the definition of spent nuclear fuel. We are leaving that the same. 
But we are giving the authorization and requiring that DOE spend $350 
million on cleanup in Washington, in Savannah River, and in Idaho. So 
we are pushing them ahead. So there is no holdup on cleanup, no issue. 
DOE, get back to your job of taking the waste out of the tanks and 
putting it into a glassification and storage process. Why are we 
spending billions of dollars on a glassification process--that is, the 
process of taking this spent fuel and turning it into glass logs and 
moving it into storage--if we are going to leave so much of it in the 
ground in these tanks? Why would we be spending so much money on it?
  As my colleagues are trying to paint a picture that somehow our 
language does not take care of the blackmail clause, we are simply 
not--in Washington or in Idaho--going to be blackmailed by DOE into 
sneaking in language or having our funds held up. As my colleague from 
Washington said, we have successfully, as a caucus, fought these 
efforts in the past and have not been peeled off by DOE, that likes to 
play a switch-and-run game, just because OMB or somebody says we don't 
have the money in the budget to do the cleanup.
  Well, nuclear waste cleanup costs money. The plume in our State 
already has 1 million gallons of ground water leakage; I will point out 
to my colleagues, these tanks started leaking

[[Page 11486]]

years ago. This is not a recent phenomenon. So the fact that these 
tanks were built, and that DOE knew they were leaking. We all became 
aware of this; I know this body changes, you have turnover in 
membership, but my colleagues knew these tanks were leaking. The thing 
we should have done is continued to push DOE, just as Washington has, 
just as Idaho has, and just as Savannah River has in legal documents.
  I have, again, great respect for the junior Senator of South 
Carolina, but he is wrong as it relates to his State's history. His 
State has said, on numerous occasions, that DOE is wrong on this issue. 
Now, I get that they have an advocate in the Senate today to make a 
different point for them, but why do they spend the taxpayers' money in 
South Carolina arguing in a Federal court case that DOE was wrong to 
try to change this policy and send letters to Spencer Abraham, the 
Secretary of Energy, saying he was dead wrong on this policy? Why did 
they spend the money of the taxpayers in South Carolina fighting this 
battle, along with Washington and along with Idaho, if they did not 
believe in it?
  I know. Because the State of South Carolina does believe that Federal 
cleanup policy should be preserved, that the States can only be 
protected by having a Federal statute, that negotiating cleanup policy 
standards is not the prerogative of individual States. It is something 
that is designated under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If that law is 
to be changed, then it ought to be done in the broad daylight of this 
body and this organization.
  So what are we left with today? I think some people at home, who may 
have been watching this debate, are asking themselves this question. I 
hope the Cantwell amendment is adopted because it will remove this 
debate from this bill that we need to move forward with to protect our 
troops, to continue to give them the resources they need, and move the 
nuclear waste debate off of something that is so important for us to 
get done.
  But if the Cantwell amendment is not adopted, what we will leave the 
people with is legislation that basically says the Department of Energy 
can grout these tanks and can leave this waste in the ground. I do not 
want safe drinking water affected. I do not want ground water 
contamination. I want the Senate to do its job and uphold the Federal 
standard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 10 seconds to the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Augusta Chronicle, 
which is the major newspaper at the Savannah River site, supporting my 
efforts with this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Augusta Chronicle, May 15, 2004]

                          Rescuing SRS Cleanup

       A way apparently has been found that will get the 
     accelerated cleanup project at Savannah River Site back on 
     track.
       The project was dealt a severe setback last summer, when a 
     federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy's plan to 
     reclassify residual sludge in tanks at SRS and other nuclear 
     weapons sites from high-level radioactive nuclear waste to 
     low-level waste violated the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
       That act requires nuclear facilities to route all their 
     high-level N-waste to the permanent storage facility 
     approved, but not yet built, at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The 
     energy agency is charged with removing strontium-90, 
     plutonium, uranium and other highly radioactive wastes from 
     tanks that have held the nuclear bomb making substances for 
     nearly five decades during the Cold War.
       That highly radioactive waste is extremely expensive and 
     difficult to remove. Reclassifying it and treating it on site 
     would save $16 billion in cleanup costs and shorten SRS 
     cleanup time by 23 years, according to the energy agency that 
     sought the reclassification.
       But the federal court said no, the agency cannot 
     arbitrarily reclassify nuclear waste to suit its convenience.
       The ruling made sense, but it wreaked havoc with the 
     accelerated cleanup plan. DOE is trying, so far 
     unsuccessfully, to get Congress to change the law to allow 
     the agency to reclassify the contaminated waste.
       More successful is U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham's proposal, 
     which he got included in the defense bill approved last week 
     by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Although the measure 
     applies only to the Savannah River Site, it could serve as 
     model legislation for other states concerned about residual 
     liquid radioactive waste left in DOE facilities.
       The South Carolina senator's plan would allow DOE to leave 
     in place the highly radioactive sludge that lines the tank's 
     sides and bottom, but it would have to be diluted with grout, 
     thus turning it into ``low level'' nuclear waste in 
     accordance with the state's Department of Health and 
     Environmental Control.
       The provision, said Graham, still ``allows South Carolina 
     and DOE to define high-level waste in a very reasonable 
     manner. There's nothing going to be left behind . . . that 
     will not be secured through environmental remediating to 
     protect South Carolina.''
       The next move is to make sure the Graham plan stays in the 
     defense bill as it works its way through the rest of 
     Congress. The stakes are high. DOE was planning to withhold 
     cleanup funds if it couldn't move ahead on its accelerated 
     cleanup project. The Graham plan would put the agency back in 
     business.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  I happen to believe that the sooner you clean up a nuclear waste site 
the better. And you do it within the guidelines of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. That is what we are trying to do with the WIR 
project. That is what the Department of Energy is trying to do. I think 
quicker is better because it means less seepage throughout the ground, 
less pollution.
  And there is a cost. If we stay with the original plan that was drawn 
out, we do not get cleaned up until 2065. It is going to cost well over 
$138 billion. With rapid cleanup, we save $86 billion and we help clean 
up the environment quicker, which means less pollution. I think it is 
better for the citizens of these States.
  I ask my colleagues to join Senator Warner, myself, the Senator from 
Idaho, Mr. Crapo, and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in 
voting no on the Cantwell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The assistant Democratic 
leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, do we have 1 minute on each side between 
votes on the judges?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That order has not been entered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that prior to the judges, there be 
1 minute to speak in relation to those judges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record a letter from the National Congress of American Indians. And I 
commend to my colleagues the 1995 Idaho settlement agreement and the 
Washington Tri-Party Agreement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Congress of


                                             American Indians,

                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2004.
     To: Members of the United States Senate.
     Re Tribal Support of Cantwell-Hollings Amendment to Defense 
         Authorization.

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the over 250 member tribes of 
     the National Congress of American Indians--the oldest and 
     largest intertribal organization in the US--I write this 
     letter to urge you to support the Cantwell-Hollings amendment 
     to the Defense Authorization Act that will prevent the 
     Department of Energy (DOE) from leaving hazardous and harmful 
     nuclear waste in underground tanks to contaminate our soil 
     and water. The health and environmental hazards of this 
     practice notwithstanding, many tribes believe that the Earth 
     is our Mother, and that these leaking tanks are a wound to 
     her that must be healed.
       DOE's high-level waste (HLW) remains dangerous for hundreds 
     or thousands of years. For this reason, they must be disposed 
     in a geological repository along with nuclear power spent 
     fuel. Under the NWPA, the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulate 
     the geologic disposal of HLW--and decide what is (and what is 
     not) HLW. The Graham amendment eliminates NRC and EPA legal 
     protections and gives DOE sole authority to transform these 
     lethal materials into ``waste incidental to reprocessing.''

[[Page 11487]]

       These provisions establish a dangerous precedent for the 
     country. They would allow DOE to redefine about 70 percent of 
     the total radioactivity of all the nation's defense high 
     level wastes stored at the Savannah River site, while 
     preventing access to necessary funds for other states that 
     support the existing, more protective legal framework as 
     Washington and Oregon do for the Hanford site--which is very 
     important to our member tribes in the Northwest.
       We urge you to support efforts by Senators Cantwell and 
     Hollings to strike these provisions. The costs of cleaning up 
     DOE sites are expensive. However, the costs of allowing DOE 
     to regulate itself in terms of our nation's natural resources 
     are incalculable. The Indian people of the United States--
     because we are so dependent on the Earth--will suffer 
     mightily if DOE is able to shirk its responsibilities 
     relative to cleaning up nuclear waste sites.
       Please consider NCAI's resolute support for the Cantwell-
     Hollings amendment as you determine how you will vote on the 
     amendment. If you have any questions, please contact NCAI at 
     202.466.7767.
       Thank you for your work for Indian Country, and thank you 
     for your support on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Tex Hall,
                                                  President, NCAI.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the staff indicates we have 10 minutes prior 
to the vote on the judges. That should be more than enough to talk 
about the three judges. I ask unanimous consent that the 1 minute 
between the judges, which is unnecessary, be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Have the yeas and nays on the Cantwell amendment been 
ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3261. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baucus
     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 3261) was rejected.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask the next vote be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, could we make all of them 
10-minute votes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The next vote will be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent 
that the next votes all be 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________