Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

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.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

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.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

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.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

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. ALLARD. We have one speaker remaining.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 10 seconds to the Senator from South Carolina.

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.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my wife and I, during the Memorial Day break, had a wonderful, patriotic week. It is always good to get back to the regular schedule. We started out visiting Fort Carson just south of Colorado Springs, CO, and had an opportunity to welcome home the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment of Fort Carson, the Mountain Post. Having done that, we met with a number of constituents after flying back to Washington, DC, to meet with hundreds of Coloradans who decided to come to Washington, DC, to celebrate the Memorial Day weekend here and to celebrate the opening of the World War II Memorial, which was a long time in coming. It was a great time. My wife and I were both caught up in the enthusiasm of both generations--the current generation fighting for freedom and security in Iraq, and the past generation, the World War II generation who fought and literally changed the world because of their efforts, dedication, and heroism during World War II. We were caught up in the enthusiasm of the World War II generation and found ourselves dancing to music of that era, having a wonderful time, meeting many wonderful Coloradans who were obviously excited about the fact they could come to Washington, DC, and celebrate the opening of the World War II Memorial. The 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment I rise today to commend the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment for its long history of service to our Nation and for its more recent heroic accomplishments in Iraq. Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a welcome home ceremony for the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Carson, CO. Unlike most welcome home ceremonies, this one was steeped in tradition. Few units in the U.S. Army can claim as distinguished history as the 3rd Armored Cavalry. And, even fewer have had so many of its soldiers awarded medals for valor on the battlefield. The 3rd Armored Cavalry's service to our country did not begin in Iraq, or during World II. Indeed, not even in the past century. Rather, it began on May 19, 1846, by an Act of the 29th Congress of the United States. On that date, Congress authorized the creation of a regiment of mounted riflemen for the purpose of establishing military stations on the route to Oregon. Unbeknownst to Congress, this regiment would go far beyond this limited mission in its service to our country. A year after its creation, in 1847, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, then called the Mounted Riflemen, was sent into battle in the Mexican- American War. Leading the assault on the fortress of Chapultepec, a key citadel outside Mexico City, Mounted Riflemen charged through heavy cannon fire to seize the castle and capture an enemy artillery battery. Later in the war, the Mounted Riflemen were sent to capture another enemy artillery battery halfway to the Belen Gate outside Mexico City, and then on to capture a third battery in the assault on the gate itself. It was extraordinarily successful in all three assaults. General Winfield Scott, the Commander of U.S. forces during the Mexican War, was so impressed with the bravery and toughness of the Mounted Riflemen that he gave this commendation: Brave Rifles, veterans--you have been baptized in fire and blood and come out with steel. Where bloody work was to be done, ``the Rifles'' was the cry, and there they were. All speak of them in terms of praise and admiration. What can I say? What shall I say? Language cannot express my feelings of gratitude for your gallant conduct in this terrible conflict . . . Due to the bravery of their service, 11 troopers were commissioned from the enlisted ranks and 19 officers received brevet promotions for gallantry in action. At the time of the start of the Civil War, the First Regiment of Mounted Riflemen was redesignated as the 3rd U.S. Cavalry Regiment. During the war, the 3rd Cavalry Regiment fought at the battle of Chattanooga, and in minor battles in New Mexico, Alabama, Tennessee, and Arkansas. During the campaign in New Mexico, the 3rd Cavalry Regiment fought alongside the 1st Colorado Infantry Regiment, and Colonel ``Kit'' Carson, who commanded the 1st New Mexico Infantry Regiment. Following the Civil War, the 3rd Cavalry Regiment was sent to the American West to the fight in the Indian Wars. The experiences of the Indian Wars were traumatic and brutal for the troopers of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, but they continued on. During the largest battle of the Indian Wars, the Regiment again distinguished itself. Four 3rd Cavalry troopers received the Medal of Honor for their heroism during the battle. In 1898, the regiment's mettle was again tested in the Spanish- American War. The 3rd Cavalry regiment, along with five other regular U.S. Cavalry regiments, was given the nearly impossible mission of assaulting the hills surrounding San Juan in Cuba. In the dismounted attack, the 3rd Cavalry Regiment's U.S. Flag was the first to be raised on the point of victory. With the turn of the century, armies began to turn to mechanized warfare. It was not until World War II, however, that the 3rd Cavalry Regiment was reorganized and redesignated as the 3rd Armored Group and sent to the European theater. The troopers of the 3rd Cavalry group became the spearhead of General Patton's drive across German-held France. In fact, because this unit was everywhere and nowhere at the same time, it was nicknamed the ``Ghosts'' by the Germans. And, on November 17, 1944, the 3rd Cavalry Group became the first element of Patton's army to enter Germany. At the war's end, the unit received high praise from its commanding general. General Patton commented with these words: The 3rd Cavalry has lived up to the accolade bestowed upon it at Chapultepec by General Scott. As horse cavalry you were outstanding; I have never seen a better regiment. To your performance as mechanized cavalry, the same applies. It is a distinct honor to have commanded an army in which the 3rd Cavalry served. During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment again distinguished itself on the field of battle. On February 22, 1991, the Regiment led the U.S. forces across the Iraqi border. One hundred hours later, the regiment had moved over 300 kilometers north and left the remnants of three Iraqi Republican Guard divisions in its wake. The purpose of reviewing the storied past of one of Army's most famed units is for each of us to understand just how important it was to these troopers that they live up to the unit's reputation in battle during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unlike past conflicts, Operation Iraqi Freedom was, for the 3rd Armored Cavalry, a battle of a different kind. It was for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. It was securing the peace and preventing terrorist attacks. It was for rebuilding a nation devastated by war, brutality, and corruption. The regiment was responsible for controlling about a third of Iraq, including the hostile cities of Ramadi and Fallujah and Iraq's western borders with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria. Yet, the troopers performed their mission with excellence. They were determined in the face of opposition. They overcame unforeseen challenges. They worked as never before. They also cared deeply about the Iraqi people. In one case, the regiment helped three rural villages in rebuilding their decimated communities. The troopers worked alongside families repaired and reconstructed facilities damaged and neglected for 30 years under the former regime. Schools, medical clinics and houses were rebuilt so that children could return to school and health care could be provided to all. In other cities, troopers from the regiment helped build sewer and water projects, rebuild schools, and provide clothes, blankets, and food to needy adults and children. These are only a few examples of the outstanding work these troopers did in Iraq. And, now, as these troopers reflect upon their service, they can say with pride that they accomplished their mission and made a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people. However, their service did not come without a high cost. PFC Armando Soriano joined the Army so that he could help his parents, who had immigrated to the United States in the 1980s. His goal was to save enough money to buy his parents and his four siblings a house. Yet, it was his love for his comrades that made him stand out, and as a result, he became one of the best young soldiers in the 3rd Armored Cavalry. At 5 feet 6 inches, PFC Soriano weighed barely more than the 100-pound artillery shells he hefted as part of his job driving a 155 mm cannon through Iraq. But that didn't stop him. He was faster than any of his comrades in lifting these huge shells. He was known in the unit as a soldier who would do anything for his fellow troopers. He was always positive and kept everyone going despite the tough conditions. His fellow soldiers described him as ``simply the best.'' Sadly, PFC Armando Soriano died on February 2, 2004, in a truck accident in Iraq. SP Brian Penisten, one of the unit's best mechanics, loved fishing, fixing cars and woodworking. He was a devoted family man with a 4-year old son. And, he was proud that he got to wear the uniform of the United States Army. ``He could make us look forward to doing our jobs every day,'' according to one of his fellow soldiers. ``He would be the one to make us shine and laugh and cry and everything else.'' ``He was always doing something to make things better,'' said another. SP Brian Penisten was headed home for his wedding to his longtime girlfriend when his transport helicopter was shot down on November 2 by a guerrilla missile near the city of Fallujah. He was buried on the day he was supposed to be married. These are only two stories of the 49 soldiers from Colorado who have died while serving our Nation in Iraq. And, another 233 were wounded. Despite the high cost, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment embraced their mission and worked each and every day to better the lives of the Iraqi people. Troopers like SFC Dean Lockhart have continued to demonstrate a devotion to the Army and our country despite the high price he has had to pay. On July 23, Sergeant Lockhart was manning his Humvee machine gun when a roadside bomb demolished his Humvee. Shrapnel from the bomb pierced his back, shattering his pelvis and leg. After numerous surgeries and endless days of pain, Sergeant Lockhart is back in Colorado recovering from his injuries. Despite the physical and psychological toll, Sergeant Lockhart has not given up. He still wants to spend 7 more years in the Army and he still believes in the U.S. mission in Iraq. He doesn't blame anyone for his injuries and has no regrets. If his unit was back in Iraq, he would return in a moment's notice. Mr. President, I cannot begin to express to you and to the rest of my colleagues how thankful I am for the service these brave men and women from the 3rd Armored Cavalry have given to our country. Over 400 of these troopers earned medals of valor, including 200 Purple Hearts. They sacrificed much, but they never gave up. They accomplished their mission, fought with dignity and honor, and continued the heroic legacy of the 3rd Armored Cavalry. Last week, I watched in amazement as the troopers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment were told that they had both literally and figuratively earned their spurs. Each of them are now allowed to wear those spurs in public in recognition of the unit's historic past and more, importantly, in appreciation for the unit's heroic service to our country in Iraq. Mr. President, these are fine troopers who deserve our honor, our praise, and our admiration. I commend the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment for its service to our Nation, and I and the rest of the State of Colorado welcome them home. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to report to you and our colleagues on the latest Board of Visitors meeting for the U.S. Air Force Academy. Ordinarily, I don't do this, but in light of what has been happening for the last year and several months as far as the Air Force Academy, I feel compelled to give a report to the Senate to keep it updated on how matters are progressing at the Air Force Academy. The Board of Visitors primary responsibility is advisory at the Academy. But in the process of monitoring the administration of the Academy and to be a voice for the students at the Academy, the Board of Visitors meets in mid-May at the Academy to review the activities of the Academy, assess current programs, discuss current disciplinary issues, and address proposed congressional legislation impacting the Academy and the Board of Visitors. First, let me say I was pleased by the attendance and contribution of the board members and welcomed involvement of the board's newest members, including Senator Mark Pryor. It is clearly apparent that the board is united in its purpose and serious about its responsibilities. The meeting we had here was probably the best board meeting we have had since I have had the honor to serve on the Board of Visitors at the Air Force Academy. Let me also say that Governor Gilmore continues to provide exceptional leadership and has done an excellent job of keeping the board on track and focused. During the meeting, Air Force and Academy leaders briefed the board on several important issues. First, the board discussed the retention rates of the Academy graduates. Based on the statistics provided by the Air Force, it appears the Academy graduates have high retention rates, including in some professions rates of nearly 50 percent. Retention rates for Academy graduates continue to be higher than ROTC and OTS graduates. Next, we discussed recent climate surveys. The Academy is wisely surveying faculty, civilian staff, and administrative staff, as well as the cadets. The Department of Inspector General also surveyed the cadet body in April. The result of the surveys is expected in July. The Academy did share some preliminary results which include improvements regarding respect for women, the use of alcohol, and improved response to sexual assaults. The new officer development program currently being implemented appears to be making a difference. Under this new system, cadets are taught leadership skills each year instead of just in their first years. This new system is consistent with that being used at the West Point and the Naval Academy. Lastly, the board discussed three legislative proposals. I plan to work with the leadership on these proposals, perhaps as amendments, sometime during the deliberations on this bill. The first proposal would require the dean of the faculty for the Air Force to have some prior military service. The second proposal would repeal the requirement that the Academy superintendent retire after serving the Academy. The Board of Visitors indicated its support for these two proposals. The third proposal would have structured the Board of Visitors. At this time, this proposal requires additional work. I look forward to working with Chairman Warner on refining that particular proposal. I take a moment to compliment the superintendent of the Air Force Academy, Superintendent Rosa, and also his commandant, General Weida, who stepped in at a very difficult time at the Air Force Academy. They have shown exemplary leadership in working with the student body and charting out a new course for the Air Force Academy. It is a course that will allow oversight bodies, including members of the Armed Services Committee in both the House and the Senate, the Secretary of the Air Force, the President, and the members of the Board of Visitors, to review what is happening at the Academy. In other words, they have put a system in place that is much more accountable, which will make it easier for those who have the responsibility of oversight at the Air Force Academy to follow what is actually happening. I thank the Congress for its concern about the welfare of the students at the Academy and for the opportunity to discuss the latest Board of Visitors meeting. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee for their courtesy this morning. I will take a few moments to clear up some of the debate last evening. I would very much have liked to have had a vote on the Lindsey amendment, but I understand how those things happen. I hope we can move forward. I will address three main issues we left hanging last night. No. 1 is the proper classification of the wastesites in Hanford in Washington, the Idaho site, and also Savannah River in South Carolina. This program that has been put in place is a waste and incidental reprocessing commonly referred to as WIR in this debate. First of all, I compliment Jesse Roberson with the Department of Energy. She was instrumental in getting Rocky Flats cleared up ahead of time. We are a little bit ahead of schedule. We are under budget. We have a huge savings in Rocky Flats because of a plan she put in place to accelerate cleanup, as much as $10 billion savings over time because of her plan she helped put in place, consulting with a lot of people in Rocky Flats. She had the capability of working with local elected officials, the employees, and with the congressional delegation to get things like that to happen. Obviously, everyone--the employees, the local leaders from those communities around Rocky Flats--played a role, but she was the focal point that made all that come together. She is the one who has been working on this issue to enhance and speed up cleanup on these particular nuclear sites. They create some very special problems, very difficult problems. I commend her for being willing to think outside the box and for the tremendous leadership she has shown in that regard. I will talk a little bit about the classification of waste, then about the fact that we did have hearings, then also about how we have reached out. The proper disposal plan is to leave things in place there at Hanford and Idaho, for example. Here is the issue as I see it, regarding proper classification. We can get all tied up in terminology, but the point is, what happens to the level of radiation? All these wastes are based on the amount of nuclear radiation. The fact is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rating is as low-level waste. This is based on good, scientific evidence. DOE is relying on three key points in classifying the residue as low- level waste. The first point is DOE has removed the vast bulk of the mobile radionuclides that were originally in the tanks; No. 2, that it has solidified and stabilized the remaining radionuclides by using a grout that chemically binds them so as to further limit their mobility; and No. 3, that the stabilized residues meet performance standards specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for disposal of low- level waste. DOE performance assessment shows the residue will produce an annual dose of radioactivity below the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard and well below what a person gets from a standard X-ray machine when you go into the doctor's office and get an X-ray, and that the radioactive dose to an inadvertent intruder will be minimal. Therefore, the residues meet the NRC's low-level waste standards. None of this relies on dilution of the residues but, rather, it relies on classifying the stabilized residues in accordance with the risks they present in a manner consistent with the NRC performance standards which the NRC has specifically identified as the key consideration in classifying this waste. The Department of Energy has been very responsible in what they have been doing. I am very disappointed the court decision has upset this. Prior to the court decision, it has been my understanding, the State of Washington, the State of Idaho, and the State of North Carolina all agreed on a plan with the DOE for the waste and incidental reprocessing plan. The court case gets filed, they file a friend-of-the-court brief, and everything begins to fall apart. Initially, the State of Washington, the State of Idaho, under RCRA, were working with the Department of Energy, and nationally under the Clean Water Act, the State of South Carolina was working with DOE. Now the State of South Carolina is ready to move forward. The other two States feel they cannot move forward on this issue. I think it is terrible we would tie up their plans because of problems we have in the other two States. We have to work out something that is fair. We do need to work out something that is fair to all the States. The Senator from Washington wants to completely demolish these tanks and move them out. What she did not talk about is the risk of going down into those tanks and cleaning them out before you demolish them. As a worker, I am not sure I want to go down there. I think that is a safety hazard beyond comprehension. I do not think anybody is thinking about these aspects of it. I think what the Department of Energy has come out with, with the grout, is going to immediately seal the leaking tanks so we are not going to have any more pollution. If things don't continue, they are going to continue to pour into the Columbia River in Washington. So I think they have come up with a commonsense solution. We have had two public hearings in the committee. I have the transcript here. We had one public hearing on February, 25, 2004, and we had the other public hearing on March 23, 2004. We talked about the WIR issue and how to best resolve it. I would also point out for my colleagues, there has been built at Hanford a low-level waste disposal area. So this is not new, leaving low-level waste in Hanford. I think we need to move forward in a very practical way. I will have more to say about this when we get back into debate on the armed services bill and we have the Lindsey Graham amendment before us again. These are a few things I wanted to begin to address this morning. Mr. President, I yield floor.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.