Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for coming to the floor and speaking on this issue, and for her leadership in the Senate Armed Services Committee. Before my colleague from Washington and I got a whiff of this plan, because the Senate Armed Services Committee met behind closed doors on this issue and the language was considered behind closed doors--I appreciate the fact that the Senator from New York was there fighting, at the very beginning, this language being put into the DOD bill. I appreciate her comments about the fact that basically we are taking a bill that is about defense authorization and now changing waste policy, and weighing down the process. Why would we want to weigh down the process of moving something that is about supporting our troops and supporting our efforts with a change in nuclear waste policy? The House dealt with this responsibly. They said: If you want to look at this policy, let's study it and get information. So that is what the House has done. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Washington 15 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I object.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the well-being of the U.S. population depends to a considerable extent on having access to high quality health care which, in turn, requires the presence of an adequate supply of health care professionals. The Congress and the President recognized this need when we passed, and President Bush signed, the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress. Just as with nurses, we must also insure an adequate supply of well-prepared allied health professionals. That is why, today, I am introducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act with my good colleagues, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut. The allied health professions are many. Those recognized in the act include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/ nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech-language pathology/audiology. This is not an exhaustive list, as the act will leave to the discretion of the Secretary of HHS additional professions deemed eligible. Today, many allied health professions are characterized by existing workforce shortages, declining enrollments in academic institutions, or a combination of both factors. The American Hospital Association (AHA) reports vacancy rates of 18 percent among radiology technicians, ten percent among laboratory technologists, 15.3 percent among imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent among pharmacy technicians. In addition, the AHA indicates that hospitals are having increasing difficulties recruiting these same professionals over the preceding two-year period. In my own State of Washington, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent among ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent among radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent among nuclear medicine technologists. These vacancy rates have a real effect on the hospitals in my State. When I meet with hospital officials back home, they always tell me how the lack of technicians affects patient care. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that in the period 1998- 2008, the United States would need a total of 93,000 new professionals in clinical laboratory science by creating 53,000 new positions and filling the 40,000 existing vacancies. That averages 9,000 openings per year for technicians, and yet academic institutions are producing only 4,990 graduates annually. If these numbers stay constant, we will be short by 43,100 needed technicians in 2008. According to the American Hospital Association, declining enrollment in health education programs contributes to the critical shortages of health care professionals. Similarly, data from a November 2002 study of 90 institutions by the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professionals (ASAHP) shows a three-year period of decline in enrollment in cardiovascular perfusion technology, cytotechnology, dietetics, emergency medical sciences, health administration, health information management, medical technology, occupational therapy, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and respiratory therapy technician programs. As an indication of a worsening situation, data from the 2002-2003 academic year, alone, show that dental hygiene, physician assistant, and speech-language pathology and audiology should be added to this list. While having an adequate number of health professionals in our country is key to ensuring access to health care for all of us, certainly one of the key populations for whom a healthy supply of health professionals is vitally important for is our senior population. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that rapid growth of the population age 65 and over will begin in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65 and will continue for many years. From 1900 to 2000, the proportion of persons 65 and over tripled, going from 4.1 percent to 12.4 percent. The baby-boom generation's movement into middle age, a period when the incidence of heart attack and stroke increases, will produce a higher demand for therapeutic services. Medical advances now enable more patients with critical problems to survive, but in order to do so and maintain a high quality of life, these patients may need extensive therapy. Along with the aging of the population came an increase in the number of Americans living with one, and often more than one, chronic condition. Today, it is estimated that 125 million Americans live with a chronic condition, and by 2020 as the population ages, that number will increase to an estimated 157 million, with 81 million of them having two or more chronic conditions. Twenty-five percent of individuals with chronic conditions have some type of activity limitations. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is for beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions. Many individuals with chronic conditions rely on family caregivers. Approximately nine million Americans provide such services, and on the average, they spend 24 hours a week doing so. Caregivers aged 65-74 provide an average of 30.7 hours of care per week and individuals aged 75 and older provide an average of 34.5 hours per week. Women are more likely than men to have chronic conditions, in part because they have longer life expectancies. These same women are caregivers to other chronically ill persons. In addition, 65 percent of caregivers are female, and of all caregivers, nearly 40 percent are 55 years of age and older. Physicians report that their training does not adequately prepare them to care for this type of patient by providing education and offering effective nutritional guidance. Those aspects of care can be provided by allied health professionals, but many of them need better preparation to treat and coordinate care for patients with chronic conditions. While much emphasis is placed on curative forms of care, additional efforts must be devoted to slowing the progression of disease and its effects. One example of the effectiveness of allied health interventions may be illustrated by a study funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (since renamed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). The investigation showed that significant benefits resulted from a nine-month occupational therapy intervention intended to reduce health-related declines among urban, multiethnic, independent-living older adults. The majority of study participants, 73 percent, lived alone and 26 percent reported at least one disability. Important health-related benefits attributable to the intervention continued over a six-month interval in the absence of further treatment. The bill I and my colleagues introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, is intended to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high quality allied health education and training. Furthermore, the bill will provide additional funding to ensure that such education and training can be provided to allied health students so that the U.S. healthcare industry will have a supply of allied health professionals needed to support the nation's health care system in this decade and beyond. The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand the enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants are intended to establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in non-institutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants are intended to promote career advancement for allied health personnel. Grants will also be made available to health care facilities to enable them to carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded to a variety of geographic regions, and to a range of different types and sizes of facilities, including facilities located in rural, urban, and suburban areas. Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty who are pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program. I am especially proud of the provisions of this legislation regarding the National Health Service Corps program, the brain child of Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington. The NHSC program, of course, encourages students in the health professions such as doctors and dentists to serve in underserved areas throughout our Nation in return for loan repayment assistance. And, like the NHSC program, this Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas with allied health personnel shortages. There are a number of organizations supporting this bill, and I thank them for that support. Among them, the list includes, but is not limited to: Washington State Hospital Association Health Work Force Institute (Seattle, WA) American Association for Respiratory Care American Association of Community Colleges American Clinical Laboratory Association American Dental Hygienists' Association American Dietetic Association American Health Information Management Association American Physical Therapy Association American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science American Society for Clinical Pathology American Society of Radiologic Technologists Association of Academic Health Centers College of Health Deans Midwest Regional Deans Group Myositis Association National Association of EMS Educators National Cancer Registrars Association National Network of Health Career Programs in Two-Year Colleges Northeast Regional Deans Group Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the well-being of the U.S. population depends to a considerable extent on having access to high quality health care which, in turn, requires the presence of an adequate supply of health care professionals. The Congress and the President recognized this need when we passed, and President Bush signed, the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress. Just as with nurses, we must also insure an adequate supply of well-prepared allied health professionals. That is why, today, I am introducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act with my good colleagues, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut. The allied health professions are many. Those recognized in the act include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/ nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech-language pathology/audiology. This is not an exhaustive list, as the act will leave to the discretion of the Secretary of HHS additional professions deemed eligible. Today, many allied health professions are characterized by existing workforce shortages, declining enrollments in academic institutions, or a combination of both factors. The American Hospital Association (AHA) reports vacancy rates of 18 percent among radiology technicians, ten percent among laboratory technologists, 15.3 percent among imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent among pharmacy technicians. In addition, the AHA indicates that hospitals are having increasing difficulties recruiting these same professionals over the preceding two-year period. In my own State of Washington, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent among ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent among radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent among nuclear medicine technologists. These vacancy rates have a real effect on the hospitals in my State. When I meet with hospital officials back home, they always tell me how the lack of technicians affects patient care. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that in the period 1998- 2008, the United States would need a total of 93,000 new professionals in clinical laboratory science by creating 53,000 new positions and filling the 40,000 existing vacancies. That averages 9,000 openings per year for technicians, and yet academic institutions are producing only 4,990 graduates annually. If these numbers stay constant, we will be short by 43,100 needed technicians in 2008. According to the American Hospital Association, declining enrollment in health education programs contributes to the critical shortages of health care professionals. Similarly, data from a November 2002 study of 90 institutions by the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professionals (ASAHP) shows a three-year period of decline in enrollment in cardiovascular perfusion technology, cytotechnology, dietetics, emergency medical sciences, health administration, health information management, medical technology, occupational therapy, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and respiratory therapy technician programs. As an indication of a worsening situation, data from the 2002-2003 academic year, alone, show that dental hygiene, physician assistant, and speech-language pathology and audiology should be added to this list. While having an adequate number of health professionals in our country is key to ensuring access to health care for all of us, certainly one of the key populations for whom a healthy supply of health professionals is vitally important for is our senior population. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that rapid growth of the population age 65 and over will begin in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65 and will continue for many years. From 1900 to 2000, the proportion of persons 65 and over tripled, going from 4.1 percent to 12.4 percent. The baby-boom generation's movement into middle age, a period when the incidence of heart attack and stroke increases, will produce a higher demand for therapeutic services. Medical advances now enable more patients with critical problems to survive, but in order to do so and maintain a high quality of life, these patients may need extensive therapy. Along with the aging of the population came an increase in the number of Americans living with one, and often more than one, chronic condition. Today, it is estimated that 125 million Americans live with a chronic condition, and by 2020 as the population ages, that number will increase to an estimated 157 million, with 81 million of them having two or more chronic conditions. Twenty-five percent of individuals with chronic conditions have some type of activity limitations. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is for beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions. Many individuals with chronic conditions rely on family caregivers. Approximately nine million Americans provide such services, and on the average, they spend 24 hours a week doing so. Caregivers aged 65-74 provide an average of 30.7 hours of care per week and individuals aged 75 and older provide an average of 34.5 hours per week. Women are more likely than men to have chronic conditions, in part because they have longer life expectancies. These same women are caregivers to other chronically ill persons. In addition, 65 percent of caregivers are female, and of all caregivers, nearly 40 percent are 55 years of age and older. Physicians report that their training does not adequately prepare them to care for this type of patient by providing education and offering effective nutritional guidance. Those aspects of care can be provided by allied health professionals, but many of them need better preparation to treat and coordinate care for patients with chronic conditions. While much emphasis is placed on curative forms of care, additional efforts must be devoted to slowing the progression of disease and its effects. One example of the effectiveness of allied health interventions may be illustrated by a study funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (since renamed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). The investigation showed that significant benefits resulted from a nine-month occupational therapy intervention intended to reduce health-related declines among urban, multiethnic, independent-living older adults. The majority of study participants, 73 percent, lived alone and 26 percent reported at least one disability. Important health-related benefits attributable to the intervention continued over a six-month interval in the absence of further treatment. The bill I and my colleagues introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, is intended to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high quality allied health education and training. Furthermore, the bill will provide additional funding to ensure that such education and training can be provided to allied health students so that the U.S. healthcare industry will have a supply of allied health professionals needed to support the nation's health care system in this decade and beyond. The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand the enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants are intended to establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in non-institutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants are intended to promote career advancement for allied health personnel. Grants will also be made available to health care facilities to enable them to carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded to a variety of geographic regions, and to a range of different types and sizes of facilities, including facilities located in rural, urban, and suburban areas. Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty who are pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program. I am especially proud of the provisions of this legislation regarding the National Health Service Corps program, the brain child of Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington. The NHSC program, of course, encourages students in the health professions such as doctors and dentists to serve in underserved areas throughout our Nation in return for loan repayment assistance. And, like the NHSC program, this Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas with allied health personnel shortages. There are a number of organizations supporting this bill, and I thank them for that support. Among them, the list includes, but is not limited to: Washington State Hospital Association Health Work Force Institute (Seattle, WA) American Association for Respiratory Care American Association of Community Colleges American Clinical Laboratory Association American Dental Hygienists' Association American Dietetic Association American Health Information Management Association American Physical Therapy Association American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science American Society for Clinical Pathology American Society of Radiologic Technologists Association of Academic Health Centers College of Health Deans Midwest Regional Deans Group Myositis Association National Association of EMS Educators National Cancer Registrars Association National Network of Health Career Programs in Two-Year Colleges Northeast Regional Deans Group Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something I have tried to address many times before in this body, and that is the issue of market manipulation and energy contracts specifically by the Enron company that have gouged my constituents for millions of dollars. We have seen in the last couple of days as my own home public utilities district, Snohomish County PUD, was successful at getting audiotapes from the Enron company that showed exactly what people thought was happening: That people were talking about market manipulation, that people were talking about schemes, that people were making jokes about $250 megawatt costs and prices that were gouging my constituents on energy prices. Now we know this company has already been cited by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as having manipulated the markets; now we are hearing in their own voices, in their own words, among their own employees, that this manipulation was going on. The question is, what are we going to do about the market manipulation that has happened and for which my consumers have been gouged? My own home, my own personal utility has had a 50-percent rate increase since the energy crisis took place. That means my constituents have been paying higher energy costs on Enron-manipulated contracts and other contracts during this time period. One would think that once market manipulation had been admitted, once market manipulation had been documented that we would do something about the market manipulation. In fact, yesterday, the President said we must pass the Energy bill and we must protect consumers. I have a message for the President: This Energy bill does not protect consumers. In fact, it guarantees that the market manipulation which was done by Enron will continue because it basically says that manipulated contracts can be the standard for today. I think that is absolutely wrong. My constituents, in reports and analyses by California, Washington, and Oregon economists, have probably lost 100,000 jobs directly and indirectly from the energy crisis. We have lost a big percentage of our GDP. And we have had a huge increase in rates throughout the State. So what does that mean? That means my constituents are still paying on those Enron contracts, and when our utilities said they were not going to pay, what happened? Enron turned around and sued utilities in my State. Enron is suing my consumers saying: You still have to pay on manipulated contracts. Well, here is my check to Enron. Here is my $370.00 check that will still have to go to pay for that Enron contract in which they have admitted market manipulation. I have already personally paid them hundreds of dollars on manipulated contracts. So have my constituents. The question is whether this body and this administration are going to do anything about market manipulation, whether they are going to stand up and say that the Enrons of the world have taken the consumer to the cleaners and are going to let my constituents out of these manipulated contracts. So while the President would like to have an energy bill, I would like to have an energy bill that protects consumers. I would like to have an energy bill that passes both the House and the Senate where Members of this body and the other body stand up and say market manipulation is wrong and we do not condone any contract as just and reasonable or any contract as in the public interest if, in fact, it has manipulated, schemed, and put people out of their homes at a huge cost to many of the consumers in my State. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to clarify the intent of legislation I introduced yesterday, S. 2457. Certainly, I would like to ensure that the record reflects my intention in introducing this bill. The provisions contained in S. 2457 mirror those contained in Section 3116 of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense authorization bill, which pertain to the reclassification of high-level radioactive waste. Let me be clear: I oppose these provisions. I hope the majority of my colleagues will oppose these provisions as well. I introduced this legislation for the purpose of demonstrating to my colleagues that issues within the scope of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 do not belong within the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This was an issue of some debate on the floor yesterday, and I am pleased that the parliamentarian has in fact referred this legislation to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I am a member. I hope the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee will take note of this fact when debate resumes on Sec. 3116 of his bill after the Memorial Day Recess. A policy shift this significant requires substantial public debate within the committee of primary jurisdiction. I would also like to respond to a few of the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, earlier today. First, he noted that the Armed Services Committee discussed the issue of waste incidental to reprocessing at two hearings earlier this year. Again, the Armed Services Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction for issues related to nuclear waste cleanup policy, as has now been affirmed by the Senate's parliamentarian. Second, a hearing at which the concept of ``incidental'' waste is discussed is not at all the same as a legislative hearing on a specific proposal. To my knowledge, the language to which I object in Sec. 3116 of the DoD authorization bill has never previously been introduced as stand-alone legislation. And if it had, it would not have been referred to the Armed Services Committee. Thus, we have had no legislative hearings on the Senator from South Carolina's proposal. Lastly, the Senator from Colorado has misstated my position with regard to removal of Hanford's underground tanks, which contain 53 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste. As I stated clearly on the floor last evening, the cleanup plan at Hanford, as outlined in the TriParty agreement, does not include removal of these tanks from the ground. As I stated previously, I agree with the State of Washington's current thinking on this matter. Digging up these tanks would pose a number of unnecessary risks, and that is not a concept now on the table. I hope that the Senator from Colorado will take note of this fact. I look forward resuming debate on these matters of such tremendous importance when the Senate returns from the Memorial Day Recess.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I will yield to the Senator for a question.

Ms. CANTWELL. I think I have the floor, Mr. President, and I will yield in a moment for another question. The issue is that we have been trying to work with the author of this legislation on a compromise that would promote a dialog and a hearing. My staff has been working diligently since the language came out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This morning we learned without warning, without notice, that perhaps now they did not want to continue discussion on that, they did not want to continue discussion on how we brought this issue to light. I really did not want to spend the afternoon on the Senate floor. We had hoped we would actually propose a better process and procedure, but others want to move forward on changing the underlying bill, which in this amendment is still flawed. The proposed amendment by Senator Graham of South Carolina makes a bad situation slightly better but does not correct the underlying problem. And this Senator whose home state has one million gallons of nuclear waste flowing to the Columbia River--is going to be heard on the details of this proposal. The fact that we have not had a full public hearing on a significant change in 30 years of policy and 50 years of science is something that, if it takes me 5 hours to explain, I will take it. I will take the 5 hours to explain to my colleague the significance of these changes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Without losing my right to the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for his question. The issue is that the Senate Armed Services Committee should never have voted and considered this legislation in a closed door session without those hearings. So I certainly want the Member to be heard but--I think I have the floor, Mr. President.

Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator will yield for a question.

Ms. CANTWELL. I obviously want my colleagues to join in the debate on this issue, but the reason this Senator feels so strongly about this process is because I do believe this measure does not belong on the Defense authorization bill. We have a very important piece of legislation that needs to move through the process, and yet we have an entity the courts have turned down, that believes that States have turned them down, that believes this is a controversial issue, and thinks they ought to sneak it in on a DOD bill and that is a way to do legislation. It is not the way to do legislation. This is the only opportunity we have to expose the fact this legislation has been drafted this way and the unbelievable effect it has on so many people in this country when the Department of Energy can author legislation and give it to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who then offers it in a mark-up in private and includes it in the legislation. I am going to take a little more time to go over these facts because I think the bright light of day needs to shine on the fact the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 ought to have the attention of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and ought to have the attention of the Environment and Public Works Committee and not be proposed on the Defense authorization bill without the scrutiny of public debate and foresight that such a huge, significant change in policy would bring about. This is why I am going to take as much time as necessary to explain this policy and to say to the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that while any member has the ability to offer any amendment they want, including in an authorizing bill, usually it is the other way around. We have authorizing on appropriations and issues of that nature that have caused----

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, let's go back for a second to what this issue is as it relates to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and what the underlying change in this bill does. That is the question at hand. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle hope we can get rid of this issue in one afternoon--again, without public debate, without the scrutiny of changing the definition of highly radioactive waste. They think we should just pass what is in the underlying bill. It has only seen the daylight because of the objections of myself and other colleagues and the scrutiny of the press. That is what has gotten them now to offer the amendment on the floor. The amendment on the floor is not sufficient to strike the language relating to the reclassification of waste. So what is the issue? In 1982, when we passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act--I wasn't here but other Members were--basically we came up with a definition. We said: Highly radioactive material resulting from the processing of spent nuclear fuel, including the liquid waste produced in the reprocessing. . . . That is what this reactor did for us in World War II. It basically processed spent nuclear fuel and that liquid waste was then stored in tanks still at Hanford. That the solid material derived from such waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations. . . . So that is what we said high-level radioactive waste was. We went on to add to the definition: Highly radioactive material that the Commission says is consistent with the law requires permanent isolation. That is what we said in 1982, that the spent fuel from these reactors required permanent isolation. That is what the current law says. The current law says spent fuel requires permanent isolation. That means you have to remove it from the tanks that are there, because the tanks are leaking and you cannot guarantee permanent isolation. So the tanks have started to be cleaned up and the process for cleaning them up is underway. But now the Department of Energy wants to say, ``let's have a new definition of that.'' In fact, in the underlying DOD bill, in section 3116, it basically says: High-level radioactive waste does not include radioactive material resulting from the processing of spent nuclear fuel. How about that? One change in the DOD bill and billions of gallons of waste in my State is no longer high-level radioactive nuclear waste. Just like that, changing the definition. Yes, it says the Secretary can determine whether various hurdles have been scaled, but that is contradictory to the current law in the 1982 act. I remind my colleagues this is an act that was passed through this body after hearings, after discussion. I think the process may have taken more than a year. It took more than a year to define high-level radioactive waste. Yet now we want to pass the DOD authorizing bill with this change in it and basically say, ``let's go ahead and reclassify nuclear waste.'' I am not for reclassifying nuclear waste without a debate and a discussion and, frankly, the notion that this underlying bill would reclassify it in such an inappropriate fashion, to say you could somehow call this grouting and that this would be a sufficient way to deal with the country's nuclear waste, is incredible. It is incredible that this is the scam being used on the American public just to get this process in place. Let's go through some of the history, because as I said, I think this is really sour grapes by the Department of Energy, which has tried to get this policy pushed through and has not been successful. In fact, in 2001, basically, the Department said that they would re-create a better cleanup process. But, they said, we obviously have to get States to agree. They came to us in Washington State and we said: We have an agreement with you about the level of waste that is going to be cleaned up under the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, so we don't really know what you mean by reclassification. At that time they refused to say that they meant they would clean up 99 percent, or all that was technically possible, of this waste. So we in Washington State said: Listen, it doesn't sound like you have a serious plan for reclassifying waste when you just want to call it a different name. That is not an appropriate process. In fact, Washington State decided not to do that. Wisely enough, the Idaho court basically said DOE didn't have that ability, they didn't have the ability to reclassify that waste. That is exactly why they are trying to sneak this language in today, because they would like to continue to say that they can move ahead on a plan that, sure, would save money, but who wants to save money by leaving nuclear waste in the ground, where it is leaking into the Columbia River or the Savannah River, or other areas of the country? If somebody thinks this is an issue that affects the State of Washington, or affects just Idaho, or affects South Carolina--it doesn't. These are bodies of water, with the potential of nuclear waste in them, that flow through many parts of our country. To pass legislation without debate on changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is an incredible statement, that people are willing to override 30 years of law just to do that. There are other issues I think we need to talk about. I am very pleased the Governor of Idaho, Governor Kempthorne, issued a release saying: Federal legislation undermines the cleanup that was to take place in Idaho, at the Idaho facility. In fact, Governor Kempthorne has said his opposition to the legislation that was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee is because it allows the Secretary of Energy to withhold an estimated $95 million from cleanup funds, which is part of the debate we are going to have on the underlying amendment. But then he goes on to say: I recognize the need to ensure public confidence in how we manage nuclear waste. This legislation would be a huge step backwards, reinforcing public fears about our Nation walking away from nuclear cleanup obligations. I am also concerned this legislation will negatively impact DOE's compliance with the 1995 court settlement case in Idaho. I think Governor Kempthorne, who has to deal with this, just as Governor Locke does in the State of Washington, has realized what a bad deal this is for Idaho. He realizes the underlying language, when it tries to reclassify waste, is a danger. I find it interesting that we will forget the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, no problem. We will write our own rule about what hazardous waste is. We will come up with our own definition. The states of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, South Carolina, New Mexico, and New York filed into the court case and in their amicus brief said: DOE cannot ignore Congress' intent . . . by simply calling [high level] waste by a different name. South Carolina joined that case. South Carolina went to the courts, put its name on a brief, objecting to the DOE attempt to reclassify high-level nuclear waste by issuing an order. Why all of a sudden are we now going to listen to one State tell us they have the right to decide they are going to keep nuclear waste in their State and they are going to call it something else? Nuclear waste that reaches the Savannah River does not affect just South Carolina, and a definition in statute that conflicts with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not just affect South Carolina; it affects everyone. That is not the way to legislate, by sneaking it in without having full public debate about this issue and the obligations we have for nuclear waste cleanup. What has the Atomic Energy Commission said? Basically, it said in 1970 that over the life of these tanks, basically you have a problem. Basically, what you are saying when you assume that you will take those Hanford tanks or Savannah River tanks or Idaho tanks or West Valley tanks, and you are going to leave material in them and somehow put cement over the top of them and everything will be okay--that is counter to all the science we have had for 50 years. The Atomic Energy Commission said ``over periods of centuries,''-- guess what, that is what happens when you leave it in the tanks for a long period of time; you are talking about centuries--``one cannot assure the continuity of surveillance and care which tank storage requires.'' (Mr. CRAPO assumed the Chair.)

Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator from Washington have a question?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Graham amendment. It is almost unbelievable that we are on the DOD authorization bill, a very important bill that we need to discuss and move forward, as it supports a lot of important things for our troops, and our military strategy. But somehow the other side of the aisle and the Department of Energy think they can sneak in language to this Defense authorization bill that would allow the reclassification of hazardous, high-level nuclear waste and basically call it incidental waste. Basically it would reclassify nuclear waste that is in existing tanks in my State, in South Carolina, in Idaho, and in New York, and basically say that waste can be covered over with cement, with sand, and could be grouted. Basically, it says we can take high-level nuclear waste and grout it-- grout it. For most Americans, grout is something they see in their bathroom, not something they do with nuclear waste. Yet this is what we have before us in the underlying Department of Defense authorization bill. It is a shame. It is a shame that this body would allow such a significant change, really a change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act on how nuclear waste is classified in this country, without public debate, without a public vote, without a public hearing, even without legislation discussing that change. Yet the other side of the aisle thinks they can come at 1 o'clock in the afternoon and offer an amendment to change 30 years of policy, and that in the blink of an eye, they are going to get a vote on changing that policy without discussion. The underlying bill is flawed. As far as I am concerned, it has made the whole DOD bill radioactive itself. Why do they play politics on an issue that is so important to our country? Why do they try to sneak through a change that ought to be debated in public in full daylight, with people weighing in on what is appropriate science? Mr. President, if I sound as if I am a little upset about this underlying bill and the fact that it has this sneak attack language to reclassify high-level nuclear waste, you are right. Fifty-three million gallons of nuclear waste reside at the Hanford nuclear reservation in the State of Washington. This Senator wants to see that waste cleaned up. I do not believe that can happen by pouring cement on top of it and putting sand in those tanks and all of a sudden now say we have cleaned up waste. Nowhere has that policy been promulgated as sound science. This is a picture of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and one of its reactors in proximity to the Columbia River. My constituents in Washington State already know the 53 million-gallon tanks of nuclear waste are leaking, and there are toxic plumes that have already gained access to the Columbia River. So, yes, Washington State wants the tanks to be cleaned up. They want the material that has been part of the nuclear mission of this country removed from the tanks, the tanks cleaned up, the ground cleaned up, the plumes removed to the best possible extent, in order for us to go on with our mission and our life at the Hanford Reservation. What we do not want is somebody to come in and say all of a sudden these underground storage tanks that exist below ground should be taken and cement poured on top of them and that means they are cleaned up. It is amazing to me because when I think about the Hanford project and what I think it meant to our country, these were men and women in 1943 who started on a mission to produce a product that would help us win the war. In less than 2 years, they had the world's first reactor going and they produced plutonium that provided a very valuable tool for our country. Those men and women did their job. Now we have been left with the aftermath of that and we should handle it in the same professional way those men and women did, by cleaning up the waste and recognizing that these tanks are leaking and they are causing hazard to the environment. The appropriate way to clean them up is by making sure the material is removed and that that material is placed in a more permanent storage. That is exactly what science has been saying. Yet my colleagues believe that in this underlying bill, the Defense authorization, it was somehow appropriate, in a closed-door session, with no public, no public testimony, no public witness to this language, no bill saying they were going to put this in the DOD bill, they can now sneak through this policy. Well, thank God some people in America are paying attention because they are starting to respond. I will share some of that with my colleagues. For example, the Idaho Falls Post Register basically said those on the other side are choosing the wrong side. What happened in this case is the Department of Energy--maybe I should stop for a second and give some of my colleagues a little reminder of how we got to this point, because everybody thinks reclassification of waste is something that belongs to the States. It does not belong to the States. It belongs in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that was passed in 1982. That was passed by Congress, after much debate. It went through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the EPW Committee. They had a discussion about what nuclear waste cleanup should be. They have the authority. So when the Department of Energy recently said ``let us accelerate the cleanup of waste, let us do it faster, we have an idea, instead of removing all of the material from these tanks we can just pour cement and sand on top of it and somehow we can get this done quicker and cheaper''--I am sure everybody in America agrees that pouring sand and cement on top of the waste that is there instead of cleaning it up is cheaper. But no one says it is safer and no one says it satisfies current law in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That is why when the Department of Energy tried to use an order basically reclassifying waste, saying, ``let us try this accelerated cleanup, let us try this notion of grouting and see if it, in fact, is the way we can do this.'' The courts have said the Department of Energy does not have that authority to reclassify the waste; the definition lies within the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and DOE was not consistent with that act. So what did the Department of Energy do when they lost that case? Yes, it is on appeal. They can go through the appeal process. But instead of coming to Congress and asking for public hearings on changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, saying, ``listen, we think some waste that ought to be able to be reclassified,'' they have snuck language into the DOD authorizing bill. Let me be clear again. Sneaking in language is having a closed-door session, without public debate, without public scrutiny, without a hearing on the change in this reclassification. Now all of a sudden we are presented with this bill and people think we ought to move ahead without removing this radioactive language that is in the DOD bill, which I say has no business being here. If people want to debate this policy, let us debate it in the broad daylight of a hearing and discuss what hazardous waste is and the changes to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that might be appropriate. I guarantee, if somebody wants to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, that bill would not go to the Senate Armed Services Committee. It would be a policy that was debated by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and by the EPW Committee. It is not the Armed Services Committee's jurisdiction to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This underlying bill basically will put in place language contradictory to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. What are newspapers around America saying about this? Basically, the Idaho Falls Post Register says, ``if the courts are uncooperative, try blackmail. That is what DOE is doing by holding $350 million in cleanup funds, including $95 million for Idaho's national engineering and environmental laboratory. They go on to say, ``if blackmail fails, start cutting deals in secret with Congress. DOE found an ally and behind closed doors in the Senate Armed Services Committee won a provision in the Defense authorization bill that would allow DOE to reclassify the high-level Savannah River waste.'' I think they said it best when they said the view from Boise is more accurate, and that Kempthorne, the Governor, believes the measure ``would wreck Idaho's position in the court by setting a precedent in short order, it would undermine the State's landmark decision.'' It goes on to say: ``Why would you reward DOE for its heavyhandedness against the State by passing something in the committee with the thinnest of claims to jurisdiction? If the Nuclear Waste Policy Act needs revision, do so in the open. Hold hearings. Conduct them in germane committees. What is going on here is not science, it is bare- knuckle politics.'' That is from the Idaho paper. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer said a similar thing: ``The Senate should halt the nuclear waste plan.'' Why? Because the bill gives the DOE the reclassification authority and withholds funds, and that this is a scheme to reclassify, hoping the States will cave in. It is not a good idea. What did the Idaho Statesman say? Well, basically in a headline that said ``State Cleanup Faces An All or All Proposition,'' it said: ``We expect the Feds to clean up and move out all the highly radioactive liquid waste now stored in Idaho. No haggling, no shortcuts. Our political leaders need to hold firm even when politicians in other States are willing to cut deals.'' What did the Spokesman Review in my State say? I thought the Spokesman Review had an interesting take. They said: ``For example, let us say the next step would be to persuade the affected parties and the public there is scientific consensus on this matter. Without that, there will be no hope of political consensus. The U.S. Department of Energy believes leaving some waste behind is a good idea but is trying to slip this in as a seismic policy shift in the Defense authorization bill without comment or without congressional debate.'' I think these newspapers have it right. In fact, another newspaper in my State, the Tacoma News Tribune, said: ``It was bad enough that the U.S. Department of Energy was trying to carry out illegal, quick, and dirty disposal of the Nation's most dangerous radioactive waste. Now a Senate committee is helping the Department circumvent the law.'' I think these newspapers are on to it. The Buffalo News, in their editorial, called it ``A Dangerous Game.'' The Federal Department of Energy is trying to use administrative sleight of hand to avoid its responsibilities in the cleanup of nuclear waste at West Valley and several other sites. DOD is trying to downgrade the threat of nuclear waste altered in this bill. The department argues that the waste should be classified as high level based only on how it originated, not on what they are. But what they are still is bad. It's still radioactive and it's still a Federal responsibility. That is from the Buffalo News. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have all those editorials printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. They are saying if you put in high-level waste, we cannot tell what will happen to that over a long period of time. That is why the decision was made to take it out and put it in a permanent storage facility somewhere else, because these tanks do not have the capacity. The science says that once you do the grouting of this waste, unfortunately, your opportunity to do other things is much more difficult. Once you have poured cement on the ground and solidified it, the process of getting it out and retrieving it is made immensely more difficult. In fact, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in 2004 said: Grouting residual high-level waste in tanks that contain significant quantities of long lived radionuclides . . . Is a policy that poses considerable risk to the long-term health of the water resources in the region. This statement is from 2004. In 2004, people have said this grouting technique, which basically is storing this in the leaking position in underground tanks, is a threat to the water resources of the region. These tanks are not more than 7 miles from the Columbia River, not 7 miles from one of the major water resources of the Pacific Northwest. It already has a plume of nuclear waste that has reached the river. Fortunately, it is at a level that we can contain today but only if we continue to clean up the tanks. This proposal to pour cement and sand on top of it and just keep the waste in the ground has not been proven as a secure way to keep the waste intact and water resources clean. So what you are leaving us with in the Pacific Northwest--in Washington, in Oregon, in the tributaries feeding in and out of the Columbia River and into the Pacific Ocean--is the threat of 50 million gallons of nuclear waste not being cleaned up in a sufficient fashion and that waste ending up in the Columbia River. Or in the South Carolina, Savannah River. Governor Kempthorne said it right: this is a huge step backward because it reinforces the public fears about this process. This Senator wants to have the nuclear waste cleaned up in our State. Some people may not understand the process, or some people listening to this debate may even think this is somehow about four or five States in this country. It is not about four or five States in this country and just about whether we will change the definition of high-level radioactive waste and what we will do about the definition. That is what I am concerned about today in the underlying bill. This Nation has a responsibility--as it had a responsibility in development of the reactors, the development of the plutonium, and the development of that product--this Nation has a responsibility for the cleanup of those facilities. Oftentimes my colleagues forget about that responsibility until it comes time to do the budget and people see the huge amount of money that is spent on nuclear waste cleanup. I would be the first Senator to say we have made mistakes in this process. It is mind-boggling to think prior to my coming here that at one point in time somebody gave contracts to a company to produce vitrified logs, and they were not going to pay them until they made the vitrification work. Somewhere along the way people figured that would not work, that the vitrification process was not underway and operating. But now we have been successful and vitrification is starting to take place. That means we are taking the nuclear waste out of the ground and solidifying it into a glass log substance and that glass log substance will then go to permanent storage. So it will be in a facility that can help store that product for an indefinite period of time. That has been the plan. That is the plan on the books. That is the plan of record. But that is not what the DOE authorizing bill does. It says, ``no, let's reclassify that waste and say that it is not high level. Let's just call it another name, let's call it grout and say it is okay to keep in the ground, let it contaminate water, and let's keep the savings from that unbelievable shortcutting of our responsibilities in the cleanup process.'' I don't think that is something we want to do as a body and government. I would like to talk about how this legal process worked and why DOE is attempting to do this. What my colleagues seem to want to think today is that this is all about giving the State of South Carolina the ability to negotiate with DOE what nuclear waste cleanup should be. In fact, as I said, in the underlying bill, instead of saying that high- level waste is something that needs to be retrieved, basically that spent fuel from reactors is something that needs to be retrieved from tanks and put in permanent storage, basically the DOE underlying bill says, no, high-level radioactive waste resulting from fuel process can be reconsidered and considered for a different kind of storage permanently in the tank. And that is something South Carolina and DOE can do together. That is not what the cleanup partnership really is. The cleanup partnership is not about the State of South Carolina and the Federal Department of Energy interpreting the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in a new way by passing contradictory language. Let's imagine for a second that we let the State of Michigan determine what the clean air standards are for the State of Michigan. Let's say that EPA and the State of Michigan decided, well, the clean air standards for Michigan are going to be at X level, and that somehow that is OK for Michigan, but somehow we do not think that is going to apply to the rest of the country. Does anyone think that once it applies to Michigan, some other State is not going to say: How come you gave Michigan an exemption? They continue to pollute the air at a level that the rest of the country does not, which has a higher standard. We are talking about a recipe for disaster in the courts and for predictability in the process. I think it is very detrimental, where we are going with this legislation. The court process that took place is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. We are still waiting for a decision. I think the appropriate thing for the Department of Energy to do, while they are waiting for their decision on appeal, is to say they want to come to Congress and have hearings on changing radioactive waste definitions, that they want to come and have a discussion about that. I appreciate the fact the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, as this issue was discussed in the Armed Services Committee, understood the dangerous precedence of this language, and understood how important it was to get the DOD bill done. He basically asked that they not include that language in the bill. Now, it was a closed-door session. I do not know what the real vote was. I am sure it was a closely, hotly debated issue. But, really, what they put in was section 3116, which would overturn 30 years of carefully crafted laws and 50 years of scientific consensus related to the cleanup of the Nation's radioactive defense waste. As written, this provision--because it allows DOE to reclassify waste that, as I said, for decades has been classified as high-level waste-- basically says the radioactive and chemical toxic components would stay the same. So basically the same toxic level of waste is there, but we are just going to call it another name. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Michigan tried to change this language and prevent it from being in the bill. Unfortunately, it is in the underlying bill before us. The underlying bill before us also created a slush fund of $350 million. I find it intriguing. I love knowing a little bit about software because when you share documents and you basically try to make changes to documents, and you e-mail those around to everybody, you can look at the text and see where the changes came from. It is very interesting, this legislation was proposed by a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But when you check on who was really the author of the legislation, when you look at who was making the changes to the legislation, it was the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy wrote the statute and basically submitted it to the committee, and tried to make it look like it was a Member's idea. This is coming straight from the Department of Energy, that lost a court battle, and does not want to wait for an appeal, does not want to come here and fight their battle in the daylight, but wants to try to sneak language in a bill, in the hopes these people will blink on a Thursday afternoon. Well, I am not prepared to have this bill move forward without having this discussion today about this change. Now, what was DOE's great idea that they submitted through a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee? What was their wonderful idea? Well, besides reclassifying waste, they decided, ``well, let's create a $350 million slush fund that gives the Secretary of Energy the authority to withdraw cleanup funds from the States of South Carolina, Washington, and Idaho--until they agree with our reclassification plan.'' Basically, it was to hold them hostage and blackmail them into agreeing. As I said, when the State of Washington was offered this deal 2 years ago, we said: ``We are not taking any deal unless we understand what you are cleaning up and how you are cleaning it up. The fact that you think you are going to reclassify and rename this is not good enough for us. Let's see the details.'' When they refused to show us that they planned on cutting cleaning up all this waste, we refused to accept the deal. Now they are hoping they will buy off some other State. If the Department of Energy really believes science is on their side, if it really believes this grouting technique works, if it really believes this is the process we ought to pursue, then come before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, come before the EPW Committee, and debate a change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the policy that defines highly radioactive waste and how it should be cleaned up. I think it is a tragedy, especially when you think about the good job the people did at Hanford, the process by which these people speedily got to the business of helping us in World War II, in the cold war years, and providing us with help and support. They got the job done. They did their job. Now it is our turn to do our job and clean this up. When you are talking about 100 million gallons of highly radioactive waste that is stored in 253 deteriorating tanks in all of these States--as I said, at Hanford we have 53 million gallons of this tank waste, about 60 percent of the whole national inventory. So 60 percent is in Washington State, along with other high level waste stored in the Hanford 200-Area. That includes spent fuel and miscellaneous volumes that contain high-level waste from offsite which are also buried in the ground. I am all for considering new technology and new ways to clean up waste and to retrieve waste that is buried in the ground that is considered high-level waste, which may have come from other States or have been basically brought to the Hanford Reservation. Some has been dumped on the Hanford Reservation and then has been part of the storage there for some time, but that is a different issue. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act makes it very clear that spent nuclear fuel from reactors needs to be placed in a permanent isolated area. That does not mean pouring cement in tanks and calling it incidental. It is very clear about that. So we can talk about other technologies to clean up other kinds of waste, or we can come back and debate changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. But because 67 of the 177 tanks that we have in Washington State have already leaked 1 million gallons of waste into the ground, that is 1 million gallons of nuclear waste, this Senator does not take this issue lightly. DOE estimates that at Hanford, 270 billion gallons of ground water is contaminated above the drinking water standards across 80 miles of this site, and that plumes containing numerous toxins have reached the Columbia River. I think we have another picture of the Hanford site. I encourage all my colleagues, at some point in time, to go to the Hanford site. This site is in Washington State, but this is a Federal responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility to clean up nuclear waste. It is not just the province or jurisdiction of four or five States in the country. We spend budget money on this issue, and we need to get the job done. You can see one scene of the Hanford reservation, which is almost as big as--a third of the size--the State of Rhode Island. It is an immense property. I know the senior Senator from Washington State has joined me, and she can tell you--because she was instrumental in getting the Hanford Reach Monument created, preserving some of this as a national monument for us. On the one hand we are preserving it as a national monument and then deciding one day we are going to take high- level radioactive waste, rename it, let the plume that is already reaching the Columbia River to stay in the ground, and that somehow by putting cement and sand on it, we are all going to be OK. Everybody wants to say how much cheaper that proposal is. I think everybody in America gets how cheap it would be to pour concrete and sand. What they want to know is whether it is safe, whether it is the right technology, whether it is going to stop the plumes or leaking tanks, whether you are going to change the current law first to get there. This is a beautiful, pristine area of our country that we can preserve, but only if we do the job we are responsible to do, as the people who created the B reactor and created this facility were responsible in doing. To be irresponsible today by offering this on the DOD authorizing bill and thinking we are going to have a debate about it in a few short hours and change 30 years of law and 50 years of science is shameful. It is shameful that we think we can have this kind of discussion in a few hours and wrap up a decision. If people are so sure about their position, then hold the public hearings and have the debate. Because these tanks are leaking and one million gallons have already leaked in my State. It is not something that is a tomorrow issue. What about the science? Let's go back, so my colleagues are clear about how we got here. Congress required DOE to clean up these sites and make it a priority, and they did that in that 1982 act. That act reflected science dating back to 1950, when the National Academy of Sciences recognized that high-level radioactive waste, such as the waste at Hanford, must remain isolated from human beings and the environment long enough for the radioactivity to decay. That is a long process. That is why the Atomic Energy Commission, a precursor to the Department of Energy, also recognized something must be done to treat high-level radioactive waste in the tanks and at these DOE sites, and they referred to ``over a period of centuries.'' As I said earlier, this isn't a problem where you think about it for a few years or even a decade. You have to come up with a solution for centuries. Over a period of centuries, the Atomic Energy Commission wrote in 1970, ``one cannot assure the continuity of surveillance of care with storage tanks.'' Basically they said, you can't get it done with storage tanks. So the science has not changed since then. Yet there are provisions in this bill where DOE says, let's throw out the science. And the provision in this bill would allow DOE to take 50 years of science and leave an indeterminate amount of toxic sludge in these leaky tanks and simply say: Mission accomplished. I think we have heard that statement before. What science says is that grouting residual high-level waste in tanks that contain significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides is a policy that possesses considerable risk to the long-term health of the water resources of the region. That is what science says. The grouting proposal that is in this bill is a considerable risk. In the State of Washington, we are very familiar with this. In Washington State, thank God our Department of Ecology has had strong reservations about grouting and we have vocalized those. For us, because it is 50 million gallons of this highly radioactive waste, it would have to have been a plan for durability for 10,000 years. That is what you would have to have. That is how radioactive the waste is. What is bothersome is when people say an indeterminate amount, that is what DOE can decide. An indeterminate amount? The last 8 percent of the waste in the tanks has 50 percent of the radioactivity. Think about that. So we are saying in this underlying bill, go ahead, DOE. Leave an indeterminate amount in the tanks. Maybe they will say let's leave 10 percent. Maybe they will say, let's leave 5 percent. We know at 8 percent it is 50 percent of the radioactivity. We think the grouting plan is something that is not the way to go. We set it aside in Washington State. We said that basically glassifying or vitrifying the waste was the way to go. That means that process of turning it into a glass structure so it is a solid structure and taking it to permanent storage was a better way to go. As I said, in 2002, DOE wanted to use this accelerated initiative. We in Washington State had people come and talk to us about what accelerated cleanup was and what the schedule would be on high-level waste. And we said: We want to understand how you are going to comply with the agreements that are already on the table and with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, with the triparty agreement, because this isn't the first time the Department of Energy has had debates with the State about their responsibilities for cleanup. I can't imagine that there is an OMB director or a DOE executive who does not come to that post and look at the numbers involved in cleanup and basically says: Boy, there has to be a way we can get this done quicker and cheaper. I am all about getting it done quicker, given that I have a million gallons already leaking and running into the Columbia River. I am all about quicker. But I am not about a plan that has not been verified by science, that has not had a hearing in a full committee as to this process and what it will mean. Everybody gets the quick factor, but who said cleaning up nuclear waste in America should be about doing it on the cheap? It is about doing it the right way. As the Atomic Energy Commission said, it is about keeping it out of the reach of humans for centuries. Subsequently DOE has insisted upon researching new technologies for the treatment of Hanford tanks, this new form of grout, cast stone, steam reforming, and different forms of vitrification. In all, I think there were three cases. DOE said they would still retrieve waste from the tanks, but try to treat it and bury it in steel containers and lined trenches in the Hanford site. I can tell you, even the new and improved grout was quickly rejected by the State of Washington and by other scientists. According to the officials at the Washington State Department of Ecology, grouting would have violated the State requirement that any alternative waste that was not performed at the vitrification objected to. And, in addition, the State found that this grouting would still pose ground water risks and create leaching; furthermore, that this would violate drinking water standards. Even more interesting is the fact that the grouting was not to be found more efficient. In some instances, grouting wasn't found to be any cheaper than other options of cleaning up the tanks. While everybody says that pouring cement and sand on this is a great way to clean up nuclear waste, most people figured out that leaking would still happen and that nuclear waste would still need to be removed. They figured out that it was even more expensive to remove than waste. So those are the scenarios with which we are dealing. Those are the scenarios that have been discussed. This debate--whether we want to reclassify nuclear waste and call it low-level waste and say we are going to grout it--might be new to some of my colleagues in the Senate as to. But for the State of Washington, we already said this plan wasn't acceptable science, and that reclassification was something we didn't think we should go along with, when DOE wasn't willing to give us a definition on how they were going to clean up the waste. So this is very difficult because the tanks holding sludge and salt cake and hard heels--this would mean the waste in those tanks would not be penetrated to remove and segregate the radionuclides. The hazardous material would not be separated out and removed. It means those tanks would not be thoroughly mixed without the right level of product. Basically, what they found is that grout, as engineered, is not an option that protects human health and the environment for such a significant portion of tank waste, when we don't know the definition, because it is an indeterminate amount of tank waste. As I said, even the last 8 percent of tank waste includes 50 percent of the radioactivity. How do you know, by using this grouting process, that you have successfully rendered this a nonhazardous substance? So grout as an in-tank treatment for significant waste volume will be, as I said, probably more expensive than other routes when we find out that it is not successful. The best science says is don't hold States hostage by reclassifying waste and telling them we are not going to give them money for cleanup unless they agree to our definition. This definition is something that the Department of Energy thinks they can come up with on their own. But the courts have determined that DOE doesn't have that authority. The courts have not sided in DOE's favor. The courts have not said don't go ahead with cleanup. They didn't say you cannot move forward on cleaning up the tanks. The courts said: DOE cannot move forward on its plan of reclassifying waste and saying that it is a grout process and that is going to work. It says you cannot move forward on that. So back to the underlying bill and what happened in the Defense authorization bill. There was an amendment that would enable the Department of Energy to exempt an intermediate amount of highly radioactive waste from regulation as high-level radioactive waste. I am reading from legal counsel's interpretation of this underlying provision in the DOD bill. This interpretation says the amendment would allow the Department of Energy to continue to store waste long thought destined for deep geologic repository in existing storage tanks or send them to waste isolation pile-up plants or low-level radioactive waste burial sites. It also would exempt the Department's handling of those wastes from the license and regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It will, in short, overturn the fundamental legal principles that have governed the disposal of these wastes for the past 30 years. This legal briefing goes on to point out--which I think is very important--that for nearly half a century, when the DOE and its predecessors made plutonium for their nuclear weapons, they did so by irradiating uranium fuel, transforming it into plutonium, and reprocessing the spent fuel, as I showed in the picture with the reactor. And that became high-level radioactive waste. This is the term given to the plutonium spent fuel from the reactors was high-level waste. So what did the Nuclear Waste Policy Act say? In 1981, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act said: Let's establish a comprehensive program for the disposal of this spent nuclear fuel, and put it in deep geologic repositories licensed by the Commission. So let me be clear about this point, because I am sure we will hear about this in the debate. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was given the responsibility of the deep geological repository license procedure. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was not given the responsibility for these low-level tanks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was not given the responsibility to interpret this change in the DOD bill as it relates to whether this is a cleanup plan and whether they can license it because that is not their responsibility. Their responsibility, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is on Yucca Mountain and the deep geological solution. That is what their responsibility is. The act directed the President to decide whether high-level radioactive defense waste should be disposed of in the same repository as civilian waste, or in a separate repository. So in 1985, President Reagan decided this defense waste should be put in the same repository as civilian waste. The 1982 act defines high-level radioactive waste. We had a decision by the President in 1985 that military waste should be treated as civilian waste, and that the civilian waste should be put in the same spot. So that is the plan we have been on. Now, I have had some concerns about how much waste you are actually going to take out of Hanford because, I tell you what, I want more than 17 percent of the waste taken from Hanford to go to Yucca Mountain. I want it cleaned up and I want it in a permanent place. I don't want grouting and I don't want to have plumes continuing to leak. But that was the decision made in 1985, and the President made that decision. They said, let's vitrify this waste, glassify it, take it out of the tanks, turn it into glass logs, and take that to a site for permanent storage, wherever that site is. The plan, since 1985, has not been to pour cement and sand and create grout leaving some percentage, some indeterminate amount of waste in tanks. I cannot emphasize how important it is if DOE believes in this philosophy, this science, if DOE thinks this is the successful course of discussion that should happen with spent nuclear fuel, then come to the broad daylight of a Senate hearing and make their case and put that before the appropriate Senate committees. If they are so proud of their science and the standing of their decision, they should have no problem doing that. As Governor Kempthorne of Idaho said, when you don't end up achieving public consensus, you don't do anybody any favors. The issue is the Department of Energy knows all too well, because these States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and South Carolina challenged the Department of Energy in court, that these States do not believe this order or plan for reclassifying waste is sound science. They do not believe it is sound science. That is why they challenged it in court. I know the Department of Energy knows they cannot waltz into the Senate hearing rooms and make their case without hearing the critiques of the experts who have been dealing with this issue for years and years. And by ``the experts,'' I mean not only the scientists, but the people who have to live with the economic and health consequences of having a million gallons of nuclear waste leak into the ground and make its way to the Columbia River. Those people are paying attention, and they are paying attention to the fact that this science is not standing the test of daylight and scrutiny. If it were, they would be here debating it. I am saying to them now, this Senator, and I am sure members of other committees, welcomes the opportunity to understand this technology, to understand this new process, to understand exactly how taking some level of spent fuel from these reactors in these underground tanks and somehow pouring a grouting material on them is going to make for a successful cleanup effort. I am sure my colleagues would love to hear if it actually saves billions of dollars and can be safe and sound science. But if that is the case, then we should not be in a rush today. After the courts have already said DOE does not have the authority to change this policy without the approval of Congress, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, my colleagues should not be in a hurry to pass this legislation that basically says in a contradictory form: Go ahead, DOE Secretary, reclassify the waste because nuclear waste from spent fuel does not have to be classified as highly radioactive. The definition of highly radioactive waste that is used in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was initially modeled after the definition found in the West Valley demonstration project. That is a commercial site in New York. I am again reading from the legal opinion Energy counsel has provided to us. It basically said waste produced by reprocessing of spent fuel, that it included both liquid waste and that waste directly from reprocessing and dry solid material derived from that solid waste. In addition, it gave the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the authority to include other waste in the definition of such material. Significantly, West Valley gave the Commission power to add material other than reprocessing waste to the definition, but not to exempt any part of the processing of waste. We have had this debate, and I know the Department of Energy objected to the definition. I know they wanted the regulatory agencies to be able to exclude material from high-level radioactive waste. I know that is what they wanted. But Congress rewrote the definition, not as the Department asked, but, as enacted, the final definition provides, as I said earlier, high-level radioactive waste means material from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and that other radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines requires permanent isolation. That is the process by which we, as the legislative branch, have gotten to the point of making decisions about this incredible product that was made by men and women throughout our country in the 1940s. It was a time of great military need, during World War II and the cold war. And they did their job, as the federal government had asked. Now we are saying we are going to ignore the definitions and the process and not really have a hearing on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or the fact that the DOE has already been turned down in the courts in its ability to reclassify that waste.

Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator have a question?

Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator have a question?

Ms. CANTWELL. Without yielding the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have some more material on the history of the process. I see 2 of my colleagues in the Chamber who are also very concerned about this issue, but I imagine at least another half hour or so longer, maybe more.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this Senator is happy to yield the floor to my colleague to discuss this issue. I want to make it clear that after 30 years of standard policy, they are not willing to just have a few hours of debate and then vote on this significant a change. The underlying Graham amendment does not fix the underlying DOD committee- passed authorization language that allows the Department of Energy to reclassify waste. That is the key issue at hand. We do not want to leave this bill with this reclassification of highly radioactive waste to an amendment on spent fuel storage tanks to then be grouted over. We need to have the attention of this body, my colleagues who are members of the various committees I mentioned and my colleagues from those States directly affected, although I said it is a policy everybody should be discussing, and the public needs to have an idea and an opportunity to understand that this is a major policy proposal which is being proposed in this underlying bill. I would have preferred that the Graham amendment not be brought up today, not to this particular issue of the DOD bill being discussed. We are still talking. We hoped we might able to work something out and save our colleagues the time and attention of studying a nuclear waste policy proposal and what level of radioactivity could be sufficiently removed from tanks and what couldn't be. But if my colleagues want to continue to pursue the subject, we are going to continue to pursue and discuss this issue. With that, I know various Members of both sides of the aisle are waiting, and I will have more to say on this subject as we continue to debate the DOD authorizing bill and continue to debate whether the Graham amendment is sufficient in disposing of the problem that has now been created in the underlying bill in overriding 30 years of law and science about how this country should clean up nuclear waste. I don't believe anybody in America wants to do it on the cheap. We need to give the American public the certainty that this body will not propose major policy changes without hearings, without debate, without committees of jurisdiction having oversight of this policy proposal that is in the Defense authorization bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator from Washington is happy to entertain a question that would allow the various Members who are here----

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am trying to make the point that the ranking member of the committee, and now the parliamentarian, have agreed that this is not the jurisdiction of this committee. I ask my colleagues to weigh that in the time we have away from here, to drop this policy as it relates to trying to reclassify waste without having the proper public hearing and public comment about the issues. Yes, everyone has heard of DOE attempts to try to reclassify this waste. It is well known that they actually tried to do it by order themselves and were shot down in court. They were shot down in court because specifically they do not have the authority. They have to change the definition under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If they want to do that, debate it on the Hill, have this discussion, and move forward. I make a point that cleanup around America--whether it is in South Carolina, in the Savannah River, or whether it is Washington State at the Hanford reservation, whether it is Idaho or any other facility in this country--should be continuing. There is nothing about any court case or any court battle that prohibits the Department of Energy from continuing with cleanup. I hope they understand that is the judgment and the clarification of the court that ruled. If my colleague from South Carolina is hearing that nuclear waste cleanup may be going slow or may be put on hold in the future, that is the absolute wrong message from the Department of Energy. Congress has appropriated funds, has appropriated funds in the past, and they should be going about their cleanup job. What we are not going to do as a body is whitewash a change of significant nature where we do not have science backing that says we ought to reclassify this waste. In fact, science has been very specific in saying this is not a simple proposition. In 1990, the National Academy of Science said: There is strong worldwide consensus that the best, and safest, long-term option for dealing with HLW is geologic isolation. Again, not grouting waste in existing tanks but removing the waste and putting it in a geological isolation, as we have suggested, and others have suggested, at Yucca Mountain. A 1992 report by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory said: The grouts will remain at elevated temperatures for many years. The high temperatures expected during the first few decades after disposal will increase the driving force for water vapor transport away from the grouts; the loss of water may result in cracking . . . A 1992 study on this issue regarding just pouring cement and sand on nuclear waste and somehow storing it and solidifying it in the ground said there would be a result of cracking. What we know in Washington State is we already had the cracking of the tanks. We already had a plume of nuclear waste going toward the river. So we already know what this situation is all about. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences said: [W]aste tank residue is likely to be highly radioactive and not taken up in the grout, so there is substantial uncertainty. . . . Another 2000 study by the National Academy of Sciences says: [Using grout,] the ability of the site to reliably meet long-term safety performance objectives remains uncertain. I think there is much science that basically says we do not think grout can work. Obviously, we do not know what the Department of Energy is trying to do, because they want to leave an unspecified amount of waste in the ground and not be specific about that. So it is very difficult for us to see. I would also like in my short time here, because I know each Member is limited in time this evening, to refute the letter that was submitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While we do not know what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was asked to comment on, what they ended up commenting on was not the underlying language in the DOD authorizing bill. They did not comment on the fact that the Graham language would significantly change the Nuclear Waste Power Act and classify high-level waste as something else. What they did comment on was the fact that you could take the entire tanks out of the ground and it would be very expensive, which I do not know if people can imagine, because the Hanford site is miles and miles of acres--I think earlier we said something close to one-third the size of the State of Rhode Island. That is how big the Hanford reservation is--580 miles of land. These tanks that have stored the spent fuel are enormous. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is saying: We do not know if it is feasible to take out the tanks entirely. Well, no one ever said we expected to take out the entire tanks. What we said was we think the tanks have to be cleaned and the site has to be cleaned. And that is the removal process we should continue to do. So I think while we would be wise to get a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that was specific about the exact proposal that is in this bill and get their response, the issue is they are not in charge of short-term waste disposal. They are in charge of this geological isolation solution we in Congress and others have been looking for, and basically asking questions about, and saying, Where are you going to take the vitrified waste and put it? They are not the regulatory entity over those short-term issues. I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not fully addressed the question. I think perhaps we should send them a more direct question to which we can get a more specific answer. We will hear a lot more about this issue when we return from the legislative recess. But I assure my colleagues, we are going to continue to talk about the fact that we in Congress cannot have this significant a change in a policy by simply sneaking language into a Senate Armed Services Committee bill that does not have jurisdiction over this issue and make a major policy change that is 30 years of law--30 years of established law--and 50 years of scientific evidence and override that in a short period of time without a full discussion and debate. This underlying bill language needs to be stricken. We need to get about the nuclear waste cleanup that the science says we should do; that is, removing the high-level waste and not simply trying to do cleanup on the quick by calling it grout. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to clarify points from the debate we had prior to moving off the DOE bill and the specifics of the Graham amendment. I know my colleague, the Senator from South Carolina, is probably somewhere still in the vicinity of the Senate. I, too, admire the Senator from South Carolina on a variety of issues, particularly on National Guard issues and some of the challenges we have had, both coming from States that have been hard hit economically and challenged with a large number of people participating in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This issue that he and I disagree on obviously is one of utmost importance and certainly one that needs a lot of attention by the Members of this body. We will get that time and attention when we return to DOE after the recess. I bring up a couple of points made that are the crux of my concern about this legislation; that is, that section 3116 of the underlying bill, the Defense authorization bill, attempts to reclassify high-level nuclear waste into a low-level material and allow it to be disposed of in a different way. I object to that and I object to the process by which that legislation was drafted. The Senate Armed Services Committee does not have jurisdiction over the ability to reclassify waste. That is a change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act drafted in 1982. If the Department of Energy wants to have that debate, then the Department of Energy should come down here and have hearings before the appropriate committees and discuss that issue. But to have such a major policy change of 30 years' policy since 1982 and 50 years of science saying this is what high-level nuclear waste is and one day changing it in the DOD bill is beyond absurd. Obviously, that is why we have spent time this afternoon talking about it. The chairman of the committee asked me in a question whether that committee has jurisdiction over the issue. I know that DOE many times has tried with various environmental issues to have them go through the Senate Armed Services Committee, environmental issues such as the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Endangered Species Act. All of those, even though they are DOE issues, do not go through the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, the committee even said they are not part of our issues. Those are environmental policies or policies for other committees and referred to those specific committees. I read to my colleagues rule XXV earlier regarding what the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee is. It is specific to the national interests that were necessary in creating nuclear fuel. That was an offshoot of the reactors used in the development of plutonium for our efforts in World War II and the cold war, but they do not have the legislative oversight of the cleanup policy. That is the prerogative of other committees, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee. To make my point, I took section 3116 of this bill, this section that reclassifies waste, and introduced it today as my own legislation and asked for a referral. If we took this section on reclassification now as a stand-alone bill, let's see where it was referred to. That bill, Senate bill 2457, by Senator Cantwell, was referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That proves my point, that this policy change is not the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee should not try, in a closed- door session, in secrecy without having a public hearing, without having a public debate, to change policy of this significant nature which is not the jurisdiction of their committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that was also sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman and ranking member asking them not to pass this legislation out of committee, and that it was the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.