Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about where we are going with our Nation's energy policy and what this body and the House of Representatives are going to do in protecting consumers and ratepayers from continued market manipulation and energy fraud. This morning, most of America woke up to a picture of one of America's corporate leaders led off to an indictment in handcuffs. Yes, that is right, Ken Lay from the Enron Corporation, while not found guilty today, was indicted on 11 different counts, including wire fraud, securities fraud, and making false and misleading statements. The question is whether this 65-page indictment of Ken Lay, which does prove that no one is above the law, is going to bring justice to ratepayers and consumers in America who have suffered from market manipulation at the hands of Enron. I say that because there are still about 10 States in America that have utilities that are being sued by Enron. That is right, even though Enron has manipulated contracts, even though there are documents from Federal investigators showing that market manipulation has happened, Enron still has the audacity to sue utilities across the country forcing them to pay on fraudulent contracts. For the State of Washington there has not been an insignificant consequence for our economy. The fact that people in Snohomish County had a more than 50- percent rate increase and have had that rate increase in place for some time, shows the great impact it has had on our ability to keep jobs, keep people in their homes with proper heating. Even the school districts have had challenges. Snohomish, Mukilteo, and Everett School Districts have estimated that they will pay $2-plus million in energy costs if their utility is forced to pay Enron. That money could go for hiring teachers, putting classroom materials together, and helping to promote programs under the No Child Left Behind Act, but at the same time they are getting hit with exorbitant energy costs. So my constituents want to know whether this 65-page indictment is going to lead to justice for Americans who have been impacted by this matter. Washington is not the only State. Nevada, the State of the Presiding Officer who understands this issue well, has been impacted. There are States in the Midwest. There are many utilities that cannot believe that with all this information that has come about they are being asked to pay on these fraudulent contracts. I think the question that Federal regulators ought to be asking themselves, and those who are responsible for the indictment of Ken Lay--I want to applaud the Department of Justice for doing the great work they have done in actually bringing about this indictment today. But the question becomes, How did Mr. Lay influence the rest of the regulatory process? If you are the Department of Justice you are bringing about justice to individuals believed to have manipulated the market, financial documents, or made false or misleading statements. Then is the Department of Justice not doing its job? The Securities Exchange Commission, an independent organization that has basically helped in producing this indictment, showing that there has been accounting fraud, aren't they doing their job? The question remains, Why aren't energy regulatory officials doing their job. They are the ones who are supposed to make sure there are just and reasonable rates and that there isn't market manipulation. And, basically, they have said you are right, there weren't just and reasonable rates as it relates to manipulated contracts, but we are keeping those contracts in place. I raise the question this morning, with Ken Lay's indictment, whether in fact Mr. Lay did not have undue influence on the process of actually helping to get FERC Commissioners on board, and influencing policy by saying to them, stay the course with the California crisis and in the impact it is having on western markets. Today, I say we definitely need relief from these Enron contracts. Still, Mr. Lay sent a letter to the executive branch basically saying: I am attaching a list of potential candidates we think would do an excellent job on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Basically, he went on in that document to then give a list of issues that he thought were very important to consider for the Commission appointees that he thought would help influence the process. Specifically, he talked about how basically the free market should continue to be allowed, that they should not push in the energy crisis for a variety of resolutions. In fact, he actually said one of the criteria should be: Willingness to abolish current native load preference under current tariffs. For us in the Northwest, right there he was lobbying the administration to say, only appoint Commissioners to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who are going to let us have our way, putting whatever Enron power on the grid that can go on the grid. If we are willing to pay to put Enron energy onto the grid and pay more money than the Bonneville Power Administration is willing to pay, nominate FERC Commissioners that are going to let us do that. He goes on to say that he wants to select people who are going to ensure that there are free markets and open access, which is a concern. While he mentions orderly rules of the road, one of the issues has been whether there have been any orderly rules of the road. I think that is part of the concern that we have with his indictment: how much did he influence the regulatory process? A second thing came to light within the context of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The committee performed an investigation of how much Enron did influence the Commission. In fact, after reviewing memos that had been sent by Ken Lay to the Federal Government, to various individuals, including his support for the nomination of two of the Commissioners, basically the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee said that ``documents obtained indicate that Enron attempted to directly and indirectly influence the FERC investigation of the California markets and subsequent decisionmaking.'' So here we have Federal regulators that have been basically nominated and pushed by Ken Lay, and not in the normal, let's nominate somebody to head up an independent commission with such an important role for our economy and Government, way. He sent a letter basically with a litmus test: Support these people to be Commissioners of the FERC if in fact they support this philosophy of continuing to let the market go without the proper rules and regulations, and basically let standard market design, something that this body has had a lot of concern about, let that be the policy of the day. Well, one of our committees, the Government Affairs Committee, basically found that Enron attempted to have direct and indirect influence upon FERC's investigation of the market; that they were trying to lobby FERC, if you will, to do nothing about the California crisis. I find that a very interesting connection in this particular issue, again, because my ratepayers are continuing to pay exorbitant amounts for energy, being sued by Enron. They are on the hook for millions more. Madam President, $122 million just from the utility in my home county is what they want to get out of our ratepayers, when they have admitted market manipulation. I find this interesting. The day that Ken Lay actually sent the letter to the executive branch was January 8, 2001. In it, he is basically saying: I want to get Commissioners who think like Enron does. I want to get those people making these important policy decisions. Here are the policy decisions I think they should make. Make sure these markets continue to operate in the way that Enron likes. I find it amazing because instead of Ken Lay doing his job on a daily basis as a CEO, with oversight over an organization, he was lobbying for FERC commissioners. Meanwhile, less than 2 days after Ken Lay writes this letter we have audiotapes from Enron traders talking about the ricochet scheme, which was selling power outside of California and then selling it back in, doing that because it could get a higher price. So he writes this letter on January 8, and we have audiotapes on January 18 of Enron discussing how they were manipulating the market using the ricochet scheme. On January 23, about 2 weeks after he writes this, there are tapes of Enron traders on the phone discussing how they are going to take a contract with a utility in my State, in Snohomish County, and jack up the price, lying to make them think there was a higher demand for the power, and that way the county would pay more money. Just after that, 2\1/2\ weeks after he sends this letter, there is another audiotape where Enron traders are discussing how much money they are going to make off of the Snohomish County deal and how they are going to account for it in two different ways, one at $10 million and the other at $20 million, just because that is the way they keep the books. Here is a CEO who is spending his time lobbying Federal regulators on how they should not take a hard stance in California, how they should do nothing about the crisis, how they should continue to let the free market work its will, and at the same time his own employees are on the phone talking about how to manipulate price and gouge consumers. In fact, 2 days after this letter--sent on January 8--on January 10, traders discuss whether they should lie to the Wall Street Journal about their activities. Here are the people who work for this company. He could have been doing oversight of the people within his company and the market manipulation, particularly since these individuals, executives of his company, had come before Congress basically telling everybody that they were doing their job and that market manipulation was not occurring. I have a great deal of concern about whether this indictment of Ken Lay is going to bring justice for the American people and the ratepayers. Again, I applaud DOJ for getting the indictment, but the question is whether people who are still being impacted by this crisis are going to get relief. What does Chairman Pat Wood of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission say about Enron? At the time this happened, Pat Wood continued to be, I guess, a market-oriented person even though the deregulation experiment in California had proven to be ill-fated, it was proven people would take advantage and manipulate the market. The publication, Inside FERC, wrote that Pat Wood believed that ``the marketmaking style created by Enron should be emulated by other companies and supported by regulators.'' This is after Enron's bankruptcy. Enron had gone bankrupt and we had the chairman, supported by Ken Lay--we had the Federal regulator, who is the policeman on the beat supposedly protecting people--saying Enron should be emulated.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair. What else did Chairman Pat Wood say about Enron and the market manipulation? I get that he thinks a market needs to be open, but a market without transparency and a market without aggressive regulators to make sure they monitor for manipulation is not a true market. Pat Wood, again according to Inside FERC, shortly after Enron went bankrupt, said, While Enron may be a ``goner,'' . . . ``the innovation and entrepreneurial [spirit] that characterized this company remain . . . '' I will hope Mr. Wood's observations have changed by today with the 65-page, 11-count indictment of Mr. Lay. There are lots of things going on here, and the entrepreneurial spirit that he thought existed in 2001 has definitely been characterized in a different light today. It has been shown that market manipulation has happened and was perpetrated by Enron. I think where we are is taking a closer look at a deeper philosophy of what Chairman Wood really believes. It is a philosophy, again, where Chairman Wood of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was quoted as saying: . . . the new breed of energy company, in fact, is going to be the only game in town 5 years from now. That is his philosophy. This leads to the kind of hands-off approach for which Ken Lay lobbied. And again, an approach that the Governmental Affairs Committee said Enron attempted to put in place through direct and indirect influence on the Federal energy regulators. This is basically the policy I think got us into so much trouble in California, without regulators responding in due time. It is the same philosophy that has gotten utilities in about 10 States in financial risk because Enron continues to sue them. Pat Wood is clear in his philosophy. He thinks that the Enron model is the only game in town and it is the way we should proceed. I can tell you, I don't think it is the only game in town. I don't think we are doing enough on this matter. This body needs to take a firm stand that market manipulation is wrong. It can't be just and reasonable. It can't be in the public interest. And it is not what we ratepayers across the country should be forced to pay on. Again, Pat Wood, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has said, ``We're doing the maximum we can do.'' We are doing the maximum we can do. He said that in January of this year. In January of this year, while the utility in my State, in Snohomish County, was being the policeman on the beat, transcribing audiotapes, looking through documents, doing all the homework the Federal energy regulators should be doing. While Pat Wood was making the same statement saying we are doing all we can do, my constituents in Washington State were proving there was a heck of a lot more to do to give ratepayers justice. Again, I applaud what the Department of Justice has done in the indictment of Ken Lay. They are going to try to get to the bottom of this story. But what my colleagues need to realize, and understand, is we have an imbalance. We cannot have the Department of Justice doing a great job with its Enron task force and prosecution of various Enron executives on accounting and securities fraud. We can't have the SEC doing a great job on making sure there are new securities regulations in place to make sure these violations don't happen again, and then have the Federal energy regulators who are in charge of protecting ratepayers fall down on the job. That is exactly what has happened. They have fallen down on the job, they are not protecting ratepayers. We are going to see that after this indictment we are going to continue to pursue this case in the Senate, if we have to, and in the House of Representatives, to make sure that all Federal agencies do their job, and they are giving justice to ratepayers who have been impacted by fraudulent contracts. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of one of the most important bills to ever be passed by this body, the GI bill. Just like the recent remembrance of D-Day and the unveiling of the World War II memorial, the passage of this landmark legislation is another part of the World War II legacy. Sixty years ago today, President Roosevelt signed into law the ``Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.'' That bill created unprecedented access to education and training for tens of thousands of military members returning home after World War II. Even before the War ended, Congress and the Administration were preparing for the return of over 15 million men and women serving in the armed services. Without intervention, those 15 million would have no jobs or opportunities when they returned home. To prevent postwar depression caused by mass unemployment, an agency within the Administration, called the National Resource Planning Board, recommended a set of programs to provide education, training and employment for returning soldiers. One of these recommendations became the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, which was supported by the American Legion and other veteran organizations, and was unanimously passed both chambers of Congress. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law on June 22, 1944. This bill became know as GI bill, and it provided a range of benefits to help veterans reintegrate into the workforce and American society. It provided education and training; loan guaranty for a home, farm, or business; unemployment pay for up to a year; job-search assistance; building materials for veterans hospitals; and military review of dishonorable discharges. Veterans were entitled to one year of full-time education or training, plus a period equal to their time in service, up to four years. This program had a tremendous impact on college enrollment in this country. In fact, in 1947, which was the peak year of the program, veterans accounted for 49 percent of college enrollment. Out of a veteran population of 15.4 million, just over half--7.8 million--were trained, including 2.23 million in college, 3.48 million in other schools, 1.4 million in on-job training, and 690,000 in farm training. Millions of veterans, who would have flooded the labor market, instead opted for education, which reduced joblessness during the demobilization period. When they did enter the labor market, most were better prepared to contribute to the support of their families and society. The GI bill created an initiative called the Local Veterans Employment Representative Program, or LVER. This program hired wartime veterans to work in employment centers across the U.S. to help other veterans secure counseling and employment. For 60 years, the LVER Program has helped veterans find jobs, training, and education. It has become an integral part of employment services and has been instrumental in helping veterans to resume normal lives after returning. Today, LVER staff in my home State include some of the best-trained worker placement and retraining experts in the country. For Washington, which has one of the largest concentrations of servicemen and women, veterans, and their families, this is very important. Within my state, Pierce County has a particularly high active military and veteran population, and the LVER program there is a terrific example of what is possible. The Pierce County LVER program ensures that over 25,000 veterans receive the vital re-employment support they deserve. With staff assistance, they write resumes that reflect the breadth of their experience and skills, draft cover letters, and research employment opportunities. Veterans are also provided with leads on specific jobs and employers who seek the unique skills and talents of experienced veterans. Staff of the Pierce County LVER also set up three major job fairs each year, which attract over more than 6,000 veterans and employers each year. The LVER office coordinates its activities with over 500 local, State, and national employers, giving veterans access to a unique national support network. The LVER staff includes men and women like Sam Mack, Sal Cantu, Tanya Brewster, and Vicki Bishop, all of whom are decorated veterans who are proud to support their fellow servicemen and women. Sal Cantu, a resident of Pierce County, epitomizes the dedication and commitment of his colleagues. Sal coordinated a national effort to not only celebrate the GI bill, but specifically to recognize the LVER program and its tremendous impact on service members who seek meaningful employment once they return home. More than 25 State governors wrote letters lauding the efforts of the Pierce County LVER staff to recognize the significant impact of their program. Most importantly, Sal, a 40 percent-disabled Vietnam era veteran, knows how to build trusting and lasting relationships with veterans. For him, helping veterans chart the next stage of their careers is a labor of love. I am extremely proud of the many men and women like Sal who, after serving honorably in the military, have made it their second career to support and help locate jobs for their fellow veterans. Yet before the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, the United States did not provide employment or vocational services for veterans upon their completion of military service. Since the first GI bill, there have been five subsequent programs enacted to provide benefits to veterans of other military conflicts--from the Korean conflict to the war in Iraq. The most recent bill, the Montgomery GI bill enacted in 1985, is the largest contemporary program providing education benefits to military personnel. All enlisted soldiers and veterans are eligible for between $7,500 and $35,000 in educational aid. This program has attracted men and women into the armed forces by helping to pay for college. Today, over 90 percent of those who enter the military enroll in the Montgomery GI bill program. As we reflect on the history and success of the GI bill, we should consider how this program can translate to all Americans. The spirit of the GI bill that in exchange for contributing to society, this country should help individuals invest in themselves also holds true for those who have not served in the military. As the cost of education rises, many low- and middle-income students--whether they have served in the military or not need help covering educational expenses. We need to make the same kind of investment in the human capital, not just of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, but for all Americans. We need a GI bill for all Americans. In the ever-changing global economy, the success of our companies depends on adaptability and innovation. As a result, we must change the way we educate and prepare workers to compete in the global economy. When national leaders were confronted with fundamental changes in the size and nature of the country's workforce following World War II, they stepped up to address the challenge with the GI bill. The economic sea changes we face today demand a similar response. To maintain our economic competitiveness, we must keep up with the demand for skilled workers across all sectors of the economy. The changing economy has increased the demand for a college degree. In February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 6 of the 10 fastest-growing occupations in the U.S. economy require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree, and that all ten of these careers will require some type of skills training. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of post-secondary education. To keep pace in the new, knowledge- and information-based economy, it's imperative that we equip our workforce with the skills to succeed in high-wage jobs. If we fail, those who lack skills will fall further and further behind, imperiling not just their individual futures, but America's ability to compete in the global economy. It is the responsibility of this body to return to the level of investment in higher education that this country made 60 years ago. We do need a new GI bill for all Americans, and I, for one, intend to fight to make the idea of universal post-secondary education come to fruition.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this afternoon it is my privilege to introduce you to the incredibly talented nominee for a vacancy on the District Court for the Western District of Washington, James Robart. In one sense, today's confirmation vote is a homecoming for Mr. Robart. Early in his career, he served as an aide to Senator Scoop Jackson. I am sure that he would be proud of his accomplishments during a long and productive legal career, and would whole-heartedly endorse his confirmation. Following his public service as a staff member in both Houses, Mr. Robart returned to Washington State, where he has worked as an attorney for the past three decades. During his considerable years of practice in Federal court, he has earned a reputation for fairness and integrity. Mr. Robart's nomination is the result of a bipartisan selection process that has worked very well for Washington State. Members of Washington State's legal community, the White House, and my colleague Senator Patty Murray and I worked together to review a group of applicants. This cooperative approach has produced a number of highly qualified judicial nominees, and I believe it is a sound model for other States. I am confident that James Robart will make an outstanding Federal judge, and that the people of the Western District of Washington will be well-served by his presence on the bench. I am pleased to offer Mr. Robart my full support, and I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I stand today to offer a bill to protect educational radio stations. Broadcaster Linda Ellerbee has compared radio to a national campfire: a place where a variety of voices bring us stories, news, opinion, culture and entertainment. But it seems these days that those representing the biggest business interests have the best seats at that campfire. Current regulations allow commercial broadcasters to move into the spaces of some, lower-powered educational stations. Last year the FCC ordered an educational station at a high school in Pennsylvania to be closed because a commercial broadcaster wanted to move into that space. That high school station had been serving the students and the community in Havertown, PA for fifty years. But no more. The high school station's voice was silenced. And that same FCC order also closed a radio station operated by a school district in Princeton, NJ. Both stations lost their licenses so a commercial broadcaster could get a frequency closer to the very profitable radio market in Philadelphia. In my State of Washington, a high school station that has served a Seattle community for 35 years is now threatened with closure. That's because a commercial broadcaster located in another State wants to relocate to a larger city to increase its profits at the expense of the students of Mercer Island High School and the community the station serves. And in this case, the school's station also serves an important tool in the lives of those working in the local music community. The station focuses on introducing new and local bands to the airways. These artists are frequently later picked up for airplay by other radio stations. Few stations across the U.S. perform this role in the music industry. No other station serves this role so well in the Seattle music community. If the FCC allows this move, it could be worth millions to the commercial broadcasters. But what is the cost to the local community when this voice is silenced? What is the educational cost to the students at this high school? What benefits and experiences will they be losing in the future? This is a classic example of commercial interests trumping the public service interest in preserving local educational broadcasters. These small public service stations usually don't have anyone to stand up for them. Since the 1970's, we have seen more than a hundred of these stations disappear, to be replaced by larger, often national broadcasters, with little if any connection to the local community. The examples I've given you here today are not the only ones. Radio stations run by universities in Pittsburgh and North Carolina are also vulnerable to similar attempts. This is why I am introducing the Educational Radio Protection Act. My legislation is very simple: educational stations that are able to meet certain qualifying standards, similar to the requirements for primary, Class A, stations on FM radio, will be given the same protected status that these primary stations receive. This is an important measure to protect community broadcasters. And the bottom line is that commercial broadcasters won't be able to bump these educational stations off the radio dial. I thank you for the time today to discuss an issue that really is a cornerstone of democracy. For only in a democracy are the voices of the many heard to bring about a functioning government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I stand today to offer a bill to protect educational radio stations. Broadcaster Linda Ellerbee has compared radio to a national campfire: a place where a variety of voices bring us stories, news, opinion, culture and entertainment. But it seems these days that those representing the biggest business interests have the best seats at that campfire. Current regulations allow commercial broadcasters to move into the spaces of some, lower-powered educational stations. Last year the FCC ordered an educational station at a high school in Pennsylvania to be closed because a commercial broadcaster wanted to move into that space. That high school station had been serving the students and the community in Havertown, PA for fifty years. But no more. The high school station's voice was silenced. And that same FCC order also closed a radio station operated by a school district in Princeton, NJ. Both stations lost their licenses so a commercial broadcaster could get a frequency closer to the very profitable radio market in Philadelphia. In my State of Washington, a high school station that has served a Seattle community for 35 years is now threatened with closure. That's because a commercial broadcaster located in another State wants to relocate to a larger city to increase its profits at the expense of the students of Mercer Island High School and the community the station serves. And in this case, the school's station also serves an important tool in the lives of those working in the local music community. The station focuses on introducing new and local bands to the airways. These artists are frequently later picked up for airplay by other radio stations. Few stations across the U.S. perform this role in the music industry. No other station serves this role so well in the Seattle music community. If the FCC allows this move, it could be worth millions to the commercial broadcasters. But what is the cost to the local community when this voice is silenced? What is the educational cost to the students at this high school? What benefits and experiences will they be losing in the future? This is a classic example of commercial interests trumping the public service interest in preserving local educational broadcasters. These small public service stations usually don't have anyone to stand up for them. Since the 1970's, we have seen more than a hundred of these stations disappear, to be replaced by larger, often national broadcasters, with little if any connection to the local community. The examples I've given you here today are not the only ones. Radio stations run by universities in Pittsburgh and North Carolina are also vulnerable to similar attempts. This is why I am introducing the Educational Radio Protection Act. My legislation is very simple: educational stations that are able to meet certain qualifying standards, similar to the requirements for primary, Class A, stations on FM radio, will be given the same protected status that these primary stations receive. This is an important measure to protect community broadcasters. And the bottom line is that commercial broadcasters won't be able to bump these educational stations off the radio dial. I thank you for the time today to discuss an issue that really is a cornerstone of democracy. For only in a democracy are the voices of the many heard to bring about a functioning government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I had wished to speak on the previous amendment. I thought that was part of the agreement, but I will be more specific now, since the amendment has just been adopted by voice vote; and that is to say, the amendment allows us to do a study, it allows the Department of Energy to receive information from the National Academy of Sciences in the future about the ground water conditions and environmental conditions from any kind of proposal or plan on which the Department of Energy would like to move forward. I think my colleague from South Carolina said it best when he said our colleagues in the Senate have probably learned more in the last few weeks about nuclear waste and our responsibilities as the Federal Government than they have at any previous time. But I guess I disagree with my colleagues. This debate is far from over. I do not agree with the underlying bill or where it is going in changing the definition of nuclear waste. No State in America should be allowed, on the Environmental Protection Act, on the Clean Water Act, on any legislation, to cut a deal behind closed doors with the Federal Government and think they are going to stick the American consumer with waste in their backyard. While this particular amendment that we just voice-voted will allow us to say that we want this to look no further than what South Carolina is proposing, and that we want DOE to do its job in providing an environmental study and analysis of this issue, this issue is far from over for the American people. This issue not only impacts my State, and the States of Oregon and Idaho, it affects every Western State. The reason it affects every Western State is because the Department of Energy has been trying to reclassify waste all over the West, push it into New Mexico, cut it across Arizona, and demand that waste from South Carolina be accepted in Washington State. We just had to file suit recently because high- level waste from South Carolina was illegally sent to Washington State. So while I support my colleagues' efforts today to clarify that, more study and analysis should be made. This debate is far from over, and this body needs to understand that it is reclassifying the definition of high-level waste to a lower level, which will make all Americans less secure, and certainly the drinking water in South Carolina and in Washington State, if this is not resolved, less secure for people. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise as a sponsor of the Bunning amendment, and I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his hard work-- both on the Energy Committee and here on the floor of the Senate. Obviously, we are taking a giant step forward in moving major responsibility for the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program at the Department of Labor. There are thousands of people in Washington State who have been impacted by exposure while working at the Hanford Reservation. The issue is that in 2000, with passage of the original act, as my colleague from Iowa stated, we set up specific exposure cohorts that allowed workers in particular regions of the country to get compensation based on their exposure to beryllium. But where we are today is there are still thousands of workers who have not had their claims processed. One of the reasons why claims haven't been processed is specific information doesn't exist or was not kept by the various employers at these reservation sites across the country to show what exposed employees endured. The issue then becomes that they have been left to fight their own battles--to fight to get compensation, to fight to prove they actually had exposure, and to fight to pay their medical bills. With thousands of people in Washington State affected by this, I have been a big supporter of those responsibilities over at the Department of Labor. Besides that, this great ombudsman program is where individual employees can go to ask for help and support in moving their cases. It also helps in establishing a willing payer. Some of the companies that have been involved in the cleanup process throughout the U.S. no longer exist. We have had employees who wanted to get compensation, and have proven their cases, only to find that no employer existed. This helps in establishing a willing partner and payer. But the most specific and positive aspect of this legislation is the step forward in saying, let us do site profiles. Site profiles are specifically the responsibility of the Department of Labor to go to a place such as the Hanford nuclear reservation and say, even though some of the employers may not have kept day-to-day logs and details about every specific employee and how they were exposed--and my colleagues have articulated on the Senate floor already how so many people in their States did not have records kept and went to get records by the Department of Energy only to find they didn't exist for the individual employee. When the Department of Labor does a site profile, it will help us when we come back and say that a large class of people at the Hanford Reservation and possibly these other sites around the country now qualify for compensation. This will help expedite that. The amendment that was modified by the Senator from Kentucky, which the Senator from Iowa worked on, is a very helpful amendment because it actually helps speed up that process of those site profiles. I don't think it is lost on my colleagues that many of these people are dying. Many of these people, by the time this program under the DOE was going to be finished, were never going to get the help they deserved. This amendment takes a very positive step forward in getting site profiles done, getting the information needed to prove that these people have been impacted, that they have had illness due to exposure on the job, and that they will not get some help. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, it is my privilege today to discuss the incredibly talented nominee for vacancy on the District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Ricardo Martinez. The people of western Washington will be well-served by this talented and fair jurist. Given Judge Martinez's reputation for even-handedness and thoroughness, it is fitting that he was recommended by a bipartisan selection committee that I believe is a sound model for other States. Members of Washington State's legal community, the White House, and my colleague Senator Patty Murray and I worked together to review a group of applicants. Together, we all agreed that Judge Martinez is the right person for the job. Judge Martinez has ably served the people of Washington State as a public servant for more than two decades: as prosecutor in the State's largest county for 10 years; as a Superior Court judge for 8 years; and as a United States Magistrate judge in the Western District of Washington for the past 5 years. While serving on the King County Superior Court, Judge Martinez took the lead in helping to create an innovative ``drug court'' to address the unique challenge of recidivism among drug offenders. He helped build a consensus to try a new approach, and preside over the new court for three years. And it worked. The``drug court,'' one of the first in the Nation, has helped reduce recidivism rates among those people who successfully complete the program and it has been emulated by many jurisdictions across the country. Judge Martinez's commitment to his community extends beyond the courtroom. He has volunteered countless hours to help those in need and the homeless; to mentor young people as a coach in several sports; and to raise money for college scholarships for young men from disadvantaged backgrounds. Those who have worked with Judge Martinez attest to his fundamental sense of fairness and justice. The ABA rated him as ``well- qualified''--its highest rating--on a unanimous vote. He also enjoys support from the Federal bench, and was encouraged to apply for the vacancy by all of the incumbent judges of the Western District. I am pleased to offer Judge Ricardo Martinez my full support, and I urge my fellow Senators to approve his nomination. Nomination of Gene Pratter

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, last week I introduced S. 2491, the Allied Health Reinvestment Act, with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Lieberman. As I mentioned at that time, the Allied Health Reinvestment Act will encourage individuals to seek and complete high quality allied health education and training by providing additional funding for their studies. This funding will help provide the U.S. healthcare industry with a supply of allied health professionals support the nation's health care system in this decade and beyond. The bill has a number of supporters. I would particularly like to express my appreciation to the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, for its support of the legislation as well as its ongoing efforts to address the need for allied health professionals and allied health faculty. ASAHP, founded in 1967, has a membership that includes 105 institutions of higher learning throughout the United States, as well as several hundred individual members. ASAHP publishes a quarterly journal and also conducts an annual survey of member institutions. This annual survey, called the ``Institutional Profile Survey,'' is used for, among other purposes, collecting student application and enrollment data. These data substantiates that there is a pressing need to address existing allied health workforce shortages, which have been further exacerbated by declines in enrollment that have occurred for 4 straight years. Using data from the Institutional Profile Survey, as well as the General Accounting Office, U.S. Census Bureau, and other sources, ASAHP has compiled what I believe to be a compelling rationale in its support for the Allied Health Reinvestment Act that I introduced. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this Rationale for an Allied Health Reinvestment Act from the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

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 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.

Ms. CANTWELL. How much time remains?

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.

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: . . . 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.

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.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

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.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield the Senator from Michigan 10 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

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. 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 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 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.