Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I, like others of my colleagues, would like to see closure on this issue. Before I got into politics, I was a lawyer. I admire our legal system. In many ways, people have their chance to be judged by their neighbors. I am very respectful of the jury trial. However, in the class action arena of the law, I find more abuses than solutions. I don't believe the Constitution ever envisioned the class action litigation model that we have come up with where you can create your own false diversity and you can run everybody to Illinois or Mississippi because business is involved. I believe the removal process in this bill where the judge has discretion to remove cases from State court to Federal court will correct some abuses. I believe the coupon cases were never what the law was meant to be about. The legal reforms in this bill I support. I have an amendment. I hope we can get to it. It would allow a procedure to be had in terms of pursuing settlement. Consumers need to be told about the Pinto case and need to be informed when products are dangerous, but companies need not be required to give proprietary information without having their say. I have an amendment that would allow the judge in a particular case to rule on whether documents would be subject to seal. I think the South Carolina rule is a very reasonable rule. But whether we get to this, I believe this bill's time has come, and it is now time for the Senate to act. The abuses that are going on in class action are not about treating people fairly, they are about simple greed. These abuses need to be stopped for the betterment of us all. Claimants and businesses find themselves subject to this. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of cloture on S. 2062, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I supported the bill during committee consideration and I will be voting in favor of cloture and final passage as well. The need for this bill is pointed out daily by stories of abuse. We hear of attempts to sue McDonald's because people who eat there are getting fat. We hear of lawyers negotiating coupon settlements for their clients, while they receive millions of dollars in fees. We hear of class members actually losing money on settlements. I am a lawyer and I am not happy with that state of affairs. I don't think anyone is more in favor of a strong legal system than I am. And I define a strong legal system as one where all parties are treated fairly, wrongs are redressed, and justice is afforded equally and without bias. The Class Action Fairness Bill of 2004 does not weaken our legal system. It rectifies the current imbalance in some areas where some parties are not treated fairly; new wrongs are committed, not redressed; and justice is overlooked, if not outright disregarded. I say to my friends who oppose this bill that, just as it is important to make sure that victims have an opportunity to be heard in our courts, it is just as important to insure that the defendant is treated fairly. And I don't believe anyone can credibly claim that that is the case today in many areas of our country. Justice requires that we act to remedy that. Although I may not believe this bill is perfect, and actually have an amendment or two of my own, I do not believe we should delay this bill one moment longer. My amendment is slightly technical, but very simple. It would merely provide for uniform judicial scrutiny of sealed documents. I have based my amendment on the South Carolina district rule for how to obtain a protective order for trade secrets or other proprietary information. I haven't heard from one person in South Carolina who doesn't like the way it works. It puts all parties on equal footing and preserves judicial discretion. However, though I firmly believe my amendment would improve the bill, I will be voting for cloture because this bill is more important. I firmly believe that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 is exactly that, fair to all parties. It is narrowly aimed at some of the most egregious abuses of the class action system. In fact, I have heard from some folds that the bill does not go far enough. However, in my opinion, it is a reasonable first step in the effort to control what are clearly abuses of the system. It is reasonable because I don't think anyone in the chamber can complain about judges taking a look at settlements to make sure the class members are not being victimized further. I don't think anyone can complain about giving federal judges the power to block worthless settlements based on coupons or other gimmicks. We have even had some firms sanctioned for filing cases just to settle with no damages for the class, but significant attorneys' fees for them. We have had other lawsuits end with the lead plaintiffs and their lawyers receiving large sums and other class members receiving nothing, but losing their right to legal action in the future. When the very people class actions are supposed to help are being hurt, it is time to do something different. This bill is a reasonable step in the right direction. While some of my friends on the other side of the aisle may not like some provisions, they have to admit that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. In closing, I would just like to urge my colleagues to help us move this bill to conclusion. File your amendments, I have one myself, but don't let your personal desire to offer your amendment get in the way of this much needed legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Authorization for the Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000, which I originally introduced, expires this year. I am introducing a bill to extend this law for five years through Fiscal Year 2009 at an average authorization level of $25 million per year. Our Nation's water supply needs are great and growing. For instance, each day the State of Florida adds 900 residents. To satisfy the water needs of this daily population increase, Florida must supply 200,000 more gallons of fresh water per day. Furthermore, the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate new residents blocks rainwater penetration into aquifers, lowering the water table. In fact, residents of Florida's west coast are increasingly resorting to drinking desalinated water as fresh water sources no longer suffice. Depletion of fresh water has resulted in saltwater intrusion into inland aquifers tainting water supplies and reducing the ability of soils to grow plants. Other States are facing similar crises. In southern New Jersey, water demands are so great that groundwater withdrawals from aquifers have lowered the water table by 200 feet, causing saltwater intrusion. In Georgia and South Carolina, excessive water demand has significantly lowered water levels causing the upward migration of salt water in the Brunswick area and an encroachment of seawater into the aquifer at the northern end of Hilton Head Island. On the East Coast, which gets on average 40 inches of rain per year, water resources have long been thought to be inexhaustible. However with changing population patterns and increasing personal and commercial water use, many water-rich areas are finding that the water will not always be there when they need it. The extension of the Alternative Water Sources Act will provide States with the assistance they need to meet the needs of growing populations without harming the environment. It will also provide funds on a cost-shared basis to States for development of non-traditional water resources that will provide much needed water and prevent future environmental damages. The bill I introduce today, authorizes the EPA to provide grants, at an average $25 million a year for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009, on a cost-shared basis for alternative water source projects. The EPA administrator is required to take into account the eligibility of a project for funding under the existing programs when selecting projects for funding under this nationwide program. This law is critical to the environmentally friendly development of water resources in the United States. It authorizes funds for innovative water reuse, reclamation and conservation projects--helping many States meet current and future water supply. Populations in water-rich areas are drawing increasingly on limited groundwater supplies. In the past, groundwater users in the East might have been characterized as private wells and small public water systems. Today, as people move away from traditional population centers along major rivers, groundwater use is increasing. In Pennsylvania, about six million people rely on groundwater. Yet, trillions of gallons of fresh water in the United States are wasted and flood into the sea annually. For instance, in Florida, every year approximately 970 billion gallons of fresh water are diverted into canals that flow into the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. This precious fresh water would otherwise have replenished aquifers or nourished fragile aquatic ecosystems. If properly captured and stored, this water could be used for industrial or commercial activities, reducing pressure on precious drinking water sources. Our increasing water needs require immediate attention. We continue to make progress in conservation. In the South Florida Water Management District, nearly 200 million gallons of water are being reused per day. However, demands remain great. For instance, each resident in South Florida uses nearly 175 gallons of fresh water per day--almost twice the national average. Much of this potable water is used for watering landscaping. We must find ways to reserve potable water for drinking and make better use of other sources of water for agricultural, commercial and outdoor watering purposes. With innovations in water quantity management, we can curtail such tremendous wastes of water and reuse the water that supply storage facilities now cannot absorb. In 1999, I sponsored S. 968, the Alternative Water Sources Act, which authorized funding for alternative water projects in States that do not receive funds for water supply projects. In 2000, my bill was incorporated into S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, which became Public Law 106-457. Unfortunately, the authorization for the Alternative Water Sources Act is due to expire this year. With our Nation facing many water quantity management issues, we must act now to renew the authorization. Congress can provide tools to ensure that Americans have the water they need for a healthy and productive future. The Alternative Water Sources Act is one such tool, and we must not let it expire. I hope that Congress will approve an extension of the Act before the end of the year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Authorization for the Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000, which I originally introduced, expires this year. I am introducing a bill to extend this law for five years through Fiscal Year 2009 at an average authorization level of $25 million per year. Our Nation's water supply needs are great and growing. For instance, each day the State of Florida adds 900 residents. To satisfy the water needs of this daily population increase, Florida must supply 200,000 more gallons of fresh water per day. Furthermore, the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate new residents blocks rainwater penetration into aquifers, lowering the water table. In fact, residents of Florida's west coast are increasingly resorting to drinking desalinated water as fresh water sources no longer suffice. Depletion of fresh water has resulted in saltwater intrusion into inland aquifers tainting water supplies and reducing the ability of soils to grow plants. Other States are facing similar crises. In southern New Jersey, water demands are so great that groundwater withdrawals from aquifers have lowered the water table by 200 feet, causing saltwater intrusion. In Georgia and South Carolina, excessive water demand has significantly lowered water levels causing the upward migration of salt water in the Brunswick area and an encroachment of seawater into the aquifer at the northern end of Hilton Head Island. On the East Coast, which gets on average 40 inches of rain per year, water resources have long been thought to be inexhaustible. However with changing population patterns and increasing personal and commercial water use, many water-rich areas are finding that the water will not always be there when they need it. The extension of the Alternative Water Sources Act will provide States with the assistance they need to meet the needs of growing populations without harming the environment. It will also provide funds on a cost-shared basis to States for development of non-traditional water resources that will provide much needed water and prevent future environmental damages. The bill I introduce today, authorizes the EPA to provide grants, at an average $25 million a year for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009, on a cost-shared basis for alternative water source projects. The EPA administrator is required to take into account the eligibility of a project for funding under the existing programs when selecting projects for funding under this nationwide program. This law is critical to the environmentally friendly development of water resources in the United States. It authorizes funds for innovative water reuse, reclamation and conservation projects--helping many States meet current and future water supply. Populations in water-rich areas are drawing increasingly on limited groundwater supplies. In the past, groundwater users in the East might have been characterized as private wells and small public water systems. Today, as people move away from traditional population centers along major rivers, groundwater use is increasing. In Pennsylvania, about six million people rely on groundwater. Yet, trillions of gallons of fresh water in the United States are wasted and flood into the sea annually. For instance, in Florida, every year approximately 970 billion gallons of fresh water are diverted into canals that flow into the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. This precious fresh water would otherwise have replenished aquifers or nourished fragile aquatic ecosystems. If properly captured and stored, this water could be used for industrial or commercial activities, reducing pressure on precious drinking water sources. Our increasing water needs require immediate attention. We continue to make progress in conservation. In the South Florida Water Management District, nearly 200 million gallons of water are being reused per day. However, demands remain great. For instance, each resident in South Florida uses nearly 175 gallons of fresh water per day--almost twice the national average. Much of this potable water is used for watering landscaping. We must find ways to reserve potable water for drinking and make better use of other sources of water for agricultural, commercial and outdoor watering purposes. With innovations in water quantity management, we can curtail such tremendous wastes of water and reuse the water that supply storage facilities now cannot absorb. In 1999, I sponsored S. 968, the Alternative Water Sources Act, which authorized funding for alternative water projects in States that do not receive funds for water supply projects. In 2000, my bill was incorporated into S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, which became Public Law 106-457. Unfortunately, the authorization for the Alternative Water Sources Act is due to expire this year. With our Nation facing many water quantity management issues, we must act now to renew the authorization. Congress can provide tools to ensure that Americans have the water they need for a healthy and productive future. The Alternative Water Sources Act is one such tool, and we must not let it expire. I hope that Congress will approve an extension of the Act before the end of the year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I have had the pleasure of knowing Bryan Harwell for a very long time. I have always respected his character as well as his legal abilities. Upon hearing of Judge Houck's intention to take Senior Status, I immediately thought of Bryan. He has distinguished himself in private practice since 1984, serving as a pillar of the Florence, SC legal community. Everyone I've talked to about his nomination has been unanimous in their admiration for him and his family. As most of you know, I have based my judicial recommendations to the President on character, ability, and temperament. Bryan Harwell fulfills all of these criteria with a large measure to spare. Indeed, he has displayed excellence in all of these categories for as long as I have known him. Upon graduation from the University of South Carolina School of Law, where he finished his degree in just over 2 years, Bryan clerked for one of our most respected state Circuit Judges, Rodney Peeples. Finishing his clerkship with Judge Peeples, he then went on to clerk for one of our most accomplished Federal judges, U.S. District Judge G. Ross Anderson. Both have had high praise for Bryan's time in their service. After his clerkships, Bryan entered private practice with the law firm of Harwell, Ballenger, Barth & Hoefer, where he currently practices. His practice has involved the complete spectrum of South Carolina's laws and he has argued cases before our State Supreme Court as well as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has augmented his litigation practice with a thriving mediation and arbitration practice, an area I personally believe has great promise for addressing a number of our legal system's problems. Last, but certainly not least, he has served his country as a Judge Advocate General officer in the South Carolina National Guard. In short, like many lawyers in South Carolina, he has represented the working man and the small businessman and he has served his country as well. I have a tremendous amount of respect for that type of lawyer, having been one myself. While he has excelled in private practice, Mr. Harwell has also shown his deep commitment to his community. He has opened his practice to those who are less fortunate and who need a helping hand by serving as a referral attorney for Carolina Regional Legal Services. He has served as an adjunct business law instructor at Francis Marion University. Bryan has participated in the South Carolina Bar's Ask-a-Lawyer project, an important link between our legal community and our citizens, which often serves as the only opportunity many of our citizens have for knowledgeable advice regarding some of life's most important matters. And, reflecting his varied interests, he has also served on the Board of Trustees at Florence Darlington Technical College. Bryan Harwell has also gone out of his way to serve South Carolina's legal community. He has served as a lecturer on arbitration and mediation law on a number of occasions for our South Carolina Bar. In recognition of his accomplishments and service, I am proud that Mr. Harwell received a unanimous ``Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. I am certain that he will be an excellent addition to the Federal bench. I am pleased that the Senate has voted to confirm Mr. Harwell today.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I send my modification to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, very briefly, the amendment has been adopted, and I would like to make a comment or two for those who may still be listening. The membership has been challenged for 3 weeks now to find a way to deal with the problem. Here is the simple problem: For over a year, South Carolina, Washington, and Idaho have been trying to negotiate with DOE a way to clean up tank farms that have a lot of high-level waste. In my State, there are 37 million gallons of high-level liquid waste in tanks that are over 50 years old. There are only 51 of them. For about a year now we have been negotiating with DOE to define what is ``clean'' and how we can best close up those tanks. We have been able to take the liquid out of two of the tanks and come up with a plan that has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that says that the inch and a half of waste left in those two tanks is no longer high- level waste because of scientific treatment. We want to apply that same concept to the other tanks. What I am trying to do in South Carolina is good for South Carolina's environment. It has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as being safe. It has been approved by the Defense Waste Policy Board as being safe. It does not prejudice Idaho or Washington that have similar problems. I do appreciate the fact that the body has allowed this agreement to go forward. South Carolina will save $16 billion, and it will allow the tanks to be closed up 23 years ahead of schedule. I am willing to work with any Senator from any State who has similar problems. I am not willing to sit on the sidelines and disallow my State to move forward in an environmentally and economically sound fashion to address a real problem South Carolinians face. We have done nothing to prejudice anybody else. We have not changed any standards, given any authority to DOE at the expense of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A lot of demagoguery is going on here, but it is time to clean up these sites and stop demagoguing. I hope one day Washington can find an agreement to clean up the tanks and alleviate their ground water problems. If they need help from Congress, I will be there. But I urge Idaho and Washington and other States to try to work to get these matters behind us. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, many thanks to a lot of people for resolving an issue important to South Carolina. This amendment is a work product of Senators Crapo, Craig, myself, and others. Senator Crapo has been terrific to work with, along with Senator Craig. We have now put into place an amendment that well defines what we were trying to do. I am trying to clean up 51 tanks of 37 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste in South Carolina, 23 years ahead of schedule, saving $16 billion. My intent has been to do just that and no more. The Crapo-Craig-Alexander amendment clearly says the agreement between DOE and South Carolina is South Carolina specific. Senator Alexander's language says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will always retain the power to determine what high-level versus low-level waste is. The $350 million in question will flow to Idaho and Washington regardless of an agreement or the lack thereof. The Crapo-Graham amendment has been worked with Senator Cantwell, and it does not prevent the disposition plan that has been agreed to in South Carolina. I thank all Members. There will come a day when Idaho and Washington will need like help, and I will be there. I want the people in South Carolina to know without the help of Washington and Idaho, this would not have happened. There will be a day when they need our assistance, and I will be there. This is a win-win. There is nothing in this amendment that will prevent section 3116 from moving forward. I yield back any time I have.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I saw Senator Dodd this morning at breakfast. I am sympathetic to what he was trying to do. I said, put me down. I did not look at the substance. I apologize. The Senator is absolutely right in what he is trying to do. I agree with the chairman that these people coming out of school are not ready to perform this work. But I promise the Senator from Connecticut you will have a Republican ally if we have a transition period that is more reasonable--if not on this bill, we will do it some other time. It bothers me greatly that our interrogation system is being outsourced. We do not know who is interrogating the people in prison because we do not know who they are and who they answer to. I apologize to the Senator from Connecticut for not being able to live up to my word. I told him I would support the amendment, but I did not look at the amendment. I will never do that again. However, I do want to help--if not on this bill, we will do it soon.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. We have 7\1/2\ minutes?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to establish a Department of Veterans Affairs War-Related Blast Injury Center. The need for this type of research and treatment facility has become especially pressing in light of the staggering number of veterans returning from the battles raging abroad. Blasts from such weapons as artillery, mortar shells, and roadside bombs--improvised explosives that blow debris such as broken glass, nails, and gravel upward into the face--have become the most common mechanism of injury in modern warfare. The resulting injuries include those to the lungs, inner ear, limbs, and, quite commonly, the head. In addition to the serious physical wounds, deep psychological wounds also result, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite the fact that injuries from explosive devices currently make up the majority of combat casualties and the most severe, there has never been an established medical program to evaluate, treat, and track the short- and long-term consequences of these specific injuries. This bill is an important first step toward correcting this deficiency. It establishes at least one War-Related Blast Injury Center within VA that would provide comprehensive and specialized rehabilitation programs, as well as targeted education and outreach programs and research initiatives. The Center would be formed from a collaboration between the Department of Veterans Affairs, (VA) and the Department of Defense, promoting cooperation between the two agencies to reach their respective goals regarding the care of our military personnel. One of the Center's main purposes would be to fill in the gap that now exists in the evidence base for treating victims of blast injuries. Through its specialized evaluation and treatment of the polytrauma that results from blast injuries, the Center would facilitate the identification of trends in those suffering from this trauma and go a long way in determining innovative, more effective treatment approaches. In addition to its comprehensive rehabilitation program and the conduct of research, the Center will also provide education and training to health care personnel across the care continuum, including first responders, acute-care providers, and rehabilitation staff. It will also develop improved models and systems for the furnishing of blast injury services by VA. While my legislation does not designate a site for the Center, I mention with pride the work being done at the Tampa VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Florida. The Tampa VAMC has an exceptional Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) Service that serves the largest number of veterans in the Nation. The Spinal Cord Injury, Amputee, and Traumatic Brain Injury Programs are not only VA's largest, but they have also been recognized as providing the highest quality of care in VA by their designation as Clinical Centers of Excellence. The PM&R Service utilizes an interdisciplinary team for patient care that includes physicians, therapists, audiologists, neuropsychologists, and social workers. Among them, this wide-ranging medical staff has access to a broad spectrum of medical and support services to best treat their patients. In addition, this outstanding hospital serves as one of seven lead centers comprising the Defense/Veterans Brain Injury Center, a cooperative treatment and research program in traumatic brain injury. It also established a Gulf War Program in 1999 and in the past year created a Blast Injury Program. For all these reasons, the Tampa VAMC would serve as an excellent site for a War-Related Blast Injury Center. An April 2004 article in The Washington Post detailed the experiences of combat surgeons in Iraq currently caring for the heroic men and women serving there. These doctors described their experiences treating an overwhelming flow of soldiers with wounds that probably would have been fatal in previous wars. Increasingly, these wounds involve severe damage to the head and eyes and often leave soldiers brain damaged, blind, or both. This article paints a clear picture of the injuries our soldiers in Iraq are subjected to and must deal with upon their return. I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Washington Post article be printed in the Record following this statement. In addition, a recent update by VA's Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation National Program Office revealed over a 60 percent increase in rehabilitation patients in 2003 compared to 2002. This means that there were 215 additional brain injury patients and 423 more amputee patients. This sizable increase speaks to the great need for the War-Related Blast Injury Center. This past April, more than 900 soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq, more than twice the number wounded in October of last year, the previous high. On May 2, in a tragic event that hit close to home, 5 reservists from the Jacksonville-based Seabee battalion were killed in a mortar attack in Iraq and an additional 30 suffered injuries resulting from the blast. The Jacksonville-based Seabees were in Iraq to do humanitarian work such as fixing electrical and water systems and sewage problems. These brave men epitomized American courage and selflessness. A War-Related Blast Injury Center would serve to care for servicemembers like the Seabees who suffer this type of horrific wound. After all that these courageous, selfless soldiers sacrifice and suffer in battle, we owe them a place where they may receive the treatment necessary to mend their wounds, both physical and mental. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to establish a Department of Veterans Affairs War-Related Blast Injury Center. The need for this type of research and treatment facility has become especially pressing in light of the staggering number of veterans returning from the battles raging abroad. Blasts from such weapons as artillery, mortar shells, and roadside bombs--improvised explosives that blow debris such as broken glass, nails, and gravel upward into the face--have become the most common mechanism of injury in modern warfare. The resulting injuries include those to the lungs, inner ear, limbs, and, quite commonly, the head. In addition to the serious physical wounds, deep psychological wounds also result, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite the fact that injuries from explosive devices currently make up the majority of combat casualties and the most severe, there has never been an established medical program to evaluate, treat, and track the short- and long-term consequences of these specific injuries. This bill is an important first step toward correcting this deficiency. It establishes at least one War-Related Blast Injury Center within VA that would provide comprehensive and specialized rehabilitation programs, as well as targeted education and outreach programs and research initiatives. The Center would be formed from a collaboration between the Department of Veterans Affairs, (VA) and the Department of Defense, promoting cooperation between the two agencies to reach their respective goals regarding the care of our military personnel. One of the Center's main purposes would be to fill in the gap that now exists in the evidence base for treating victims of blast injuries. Through its specialized evaluation and treatment of the polytrauma that results from blast injuries, the Center would facilitate the identification of trends in those suffering from this trauma and go a long way in determining innovative, more effective treatment approaches. In addition to its comprehensive rehabilitation program and the conduct of research, the Center will also provide education and training to health care personnel across the care continuum, including first responders, acute-care providers, and rehabilitation staff. It will also develop improved models and systems for the furnishing of blast injury services by VA. While my legislation does not designate a site for the Center, I mention with pride the work being done at the Tampa VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Florida. The Tampa VAMC has an exceptional Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) Service that serves the largest number of veterans in the Nation. The Spinal Cord Injury, Amputee, and Traumatic Brain Injury Programs are not only VA's largest, but they have also been recognized as providing the highest quality of care in VA by their designation as Clinical Centers of Excellence. The PM&R Service utilizes an interdisciplinary team for patient care that includes physicians, therapists, audiologists, neuropsychologists, and social workers. Among them, this wide-ranging medical staff has access to a broad spectrum of medical and support services to best treat their patients. In addition, this outstanding hospital serves as one of seven lead centers comprising the Defense/Veterans Brain Injury Center, a cooperative treatment and research program in traumatic brain injury. It also established a Gulf War Program in 1999 and in the past year created a Blast Injury Program. For all these reasons, the Tampa VAMC would serve as an excellent site for a War-Related Blast Injury Center. An April 2004 article in The Washington Post detailed the experiences of combat surgeons in Iraq currently caring for the heroic men and women serving there. These doctors described their experiences treating an overwhelming flow of soldiers with wounds that probably would have been fatal in previous wars. Increasingly, these wounds involve severe damage to the head and eyes and often leave soldiers brain damaged, blind, or both. This article paints a clear picture of the injuries our soldiers in Iraq are subjected to and must deal with upon their return. I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Washington Post article be printed in the Record following this statement. In addition, a recent update by VA's Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation National Program Office revealed over a 60 percent increase in rehabilitation patients in 2003 compared to 2002. This means that there were 215 additional brain injury patients and 423 more amputee patients. This sizable increase speaks to the great need for the War-Related Blast Injury Center. This past April, more than 900 soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq, more than twice the number wounded in October of last year, the previous high. On May 2, in a tragic event that hit close to home, 5 reservists from the Jacksonville-based Seabee battalion were killed in a mortar attack in Iraq and an additional 30 suffered injuries resulting from the blast. The Jacksonville-based Seabees were in Iraq to do humanitarian work such as fixing electrical and water systems and sewage problems. These brave men epitomized American courage and selflessness. A War-Related Blast Injury Center would serve to care for servicemembers like the Seabees who suffer this type of horrific wound. After all that these courageous, selfless soldiers sacrifice and suffer in battle, we owe them a place where they may receive the treatment necessary to mend their wounds, both physical and mental. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I wish today to commend and congratulate Dr. Henry N. Tisdale on the occasion of the celebration of his 10th anniversary as president of Claflin University and to wish him continued success as he leads this historic institution of higher education. Dr. Tisdale has positioned Claflin as one of the premier liberal arts institutions in the Southeast, moving the university to the ``Top Tier'' and ``Top Ten'' ranking among comprehensive baccalaureate granting institutions in the South, according to U.S. News and World Report's ``America's Best Colleges 2003.'' Under his guidance, Claflin University has increased enrollment by 60 percent, added a number of new academic majors to include mass communications, black studies, early childhood education, biochemistry, biotechnology, bioinformatics and the masters of business administration, achieved national accreditation for business administration and teacher education, and transformed the campus through the construction of new facilities, such as the Living and Learning Center and Legacy Plaza, and the restoration of many of its historic buildings. I congratulate Dr. Tisdale on his remarkable and noteworthy achievements. May you and Claflin enjoy continued success for another 10 years and beyond.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I ask for 5 more minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the deputy commissioner of the South Carolina Environmental Quality Control, Robert King, Jr., be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. If that day ever arrives, the Senator from Washington is going to come to this body, and I am going to help her. I say the same to my friend from Idaho. That day has arrived in South Carolina. We have vetted this proposal with everybody I know. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Speaker of the South Carolina House, David Wilkins, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, the letter was an effort by the legislative delegation in the State of Washington to get the DOE to come up with some classification system for Hanford. Our distinguished Presiding Officer from the State of Idaho has been working for months now for his State to see if they could come up with a classification system for the State of Idaho. In February 2004, the Governor of Washington indicated he would designate someone to enter into discussion on behalf of the State of Washington. Governor Locke's chief of staff called the Deputy Secretary to indicate he was the Governor's designee to hold discussions with the Department of Energy. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Energy shared draft language with the State of Washington. What has been going on here for a very long time is a collaborative process between the three States and the Department of Energy to remediate the environment when it comes to high-level waste in a manner acceptable to the State. That is the process. That has always been the process, and that must be the process. But here is what we do not want to do as we negotiate individually. We do not want to, as my senior Senator said, have a State have the ability to define high-level waste because it is a national concern and a national issue. So we have been jealously guarding that concept. This amendment does not give the State of South Carolina the ability to define high-level waste because we would have 50 different versions. What it does do is it requires a collaborative process. We have already closed two tanks, and before those two tanks could be closed, South Carolina had to issue a permit saying: Yes, they are able to be closed. This amendment gives the State of South Carolina permitting authority over tank closure. That is exactly what Washington and Idaho are trying to pursue. Governor Locke has been working with DOE. The difference is South Carolina has gotten there, and to my friend from Washington, there will come a day--soon, I hope--where you can negotiate classification of waste with DOE satisfactory to Washington. And there will come a day when the Governor of Washington, whoever that may be, will say: That is a good deal. And the regulators in the State will say: That is a good classification with which we can live. The truth is, if that day ever arrives, because of the way the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is written, you are going to need legislative language to bless that agreement. Washington has a severe problem with tank leakage. I want to tell my friends from Washington, if that day arrives to where you can find a standard acceptable to your State--

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Augusta Chronicle, which is the major newspaper at the Savannah River site, supporting my efforts with this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, this letter to me says that the agreement they have achieved with DOE is environmentally sound for South Carolina; we would like to move forward with tank cleanup. Here is why this is so important to my State: It will allow $88 million to be put on the table. It will allow these tanks, now that we have reached an agreement to become dry and safe and secure and closed up, to be closed 23 years ahead of schedule. I invite everybody in this body to come to Aiken, SC, and the surrounding community to enjoy golf, leisure, and fishing. I will take you fishing in the Savannah River, if you would like to go. I do not want 23 years to go by and the chance of the tanks leaking to grow. I do not want the problem that Washington has. I want Washington to be able to fix their problem, and I will help the State of Washington. But I have a chance to do something in my State that we have not had a chance to do in 10 years. The origin of this being done started in the Clinton administration, and we are building on what happened then. This amendment is focused only on the agreement in South Carolina. Senator Crapo, Senator Craig, and Senator Alexander have an amendment to make it absolutely certain. I think it already is, but I am not here to put any other State in a bad situation. I am not here to make Washington do what we are doing in South Carolina or to prejudice Idaho at all. I am just simply asking this body to listen to the people who are responsible for the ground water who tell me this is a good agreement, it will help my State if we move forward on it, and it will safe $16 billion, for whatever that is worth. The attorney general of South Carolina was mentioned by my distinguished senior Senator. I have a letter from him supporting this agreement. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, when we talk about people with agendas, there are all kinds of political agendas when one talks about nuclear programs. That is just politics, and that is the strength of America. There is nothing wrong with that. I have a letter from the Aiken County, SC, legislative delegation-- Democrat and Republican house members and senators--who say please approve this agreement because it will clean up these tanks ahead of schedule, and it will be a good thing for our community. The difference between them and the New York Times, which is a great paper, is they live there. The Savannah River site is located in Aiken, SC. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I have another letter from the mayor of Aiken, Fred Cavanaugh, who worked at this site, supporting this agreement. In addition, I have a letter from Ronnie Young, the chairman of the Aiken County Council, where the council endorses this amendment. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, the people who have to make a living. I can assure you the Aiken County Chamber of Commerce believes this will not poison the area. It will do absolutely the opposite. It will make it more attractive. I ask unanimous consent to print those letters in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I thank the Senator for yielding. The long and short of this is that all three States--South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington--have been negotiating to define waste classification standards in their States for a long time. On January 26, 2004, Congressman Hastings, Senator Murray, and Senator Cantwell sent a letter to Governor Locke and Secretary Abraham that asked them to work together to resolve the ongoing dispute over waste classification. Please listen to what I just said. There has been a process in place in Washington since January 26 to try to find a way to reach an agreement with the Department of Energy to classify waste in that State so cleanup can move forward. The letter did not say, call Lindsey Graham from South Carolina and see if you can get his permission. It did not say, call Larry Craig and Mike Crapo. It said, call Spence Abraham and see if you all can work together. The Governor wrote back to the Deputy Secretary of Energy and said that the Governor's chief of staff would be the point of contact for negotiations February 12, 2004. From mid-February to April 13, they have been sending drafts back and forth about how to define cleanup and what is clean in Hanford. They have been doing the same thing in Idaho. We have been doing the same thing in South Carolina. All of us have one thing in common: We oppose the Department of Energy's efforts to unilaterally determine what ``clean'' is and walk away. That is why we had the lawsuit. That is why South Carolina joined as a friend of the court. The letters my friend from Washington read, about South Carolina objecting to DOE's moving forward, was an objection to a unilateral process where DOE would have the final say about how to clean up the tanks and remove waste. All of us in all three States believe we should be involved. But it has never been the policy or the process where all three States have to agree to the same standard because, Members of the Senate, that is impossible to achieve because the waste scenario and the waste stream problems in Idaho are completely different. The film we are trying to leave behind in South Carolina, that inch and a quarter of film that will be left in South Carolina and not sent to Yucca Mountain, doesn't exist in the tanks in Idaho, and the tanks in Washington have a totally different design. Three States have been working in the defense arena to find a common ground with DOE to make sure the States don't get left holding the bag, and we also made sure no State can take over defining ``high-level radioactive waste.'' That stays with the Federal Government. But the agreement we have achieved said the State of South Carolina has the final permitting authority and you cannot leave those tanks in a condition that will hurt South Carolina. They are trying to do the same thing in Washington and Idaho. I hope they get there. But if they do get there, they are going to have to do the same thing I am doing today. They are going to need legislative language blessing that agreement. There will be an amendment of the Waste Policy Act. That is going to have to happen. In 1995, legislative language was brought to the Senate to bless an agreement Idaho achieved regarding another waste stream. That is going to have to happen. I hope I will be man enough, Senator enough, not to stand in the way. If the Governor of Idaho, the Governor of Washington, the attorney general, the environmental regulators, the chamber of commerce, the mayor of the Hanford community, the communities involved in Idaho--if they say we have a deal that doesn't affect or prejudice my State or change nuclear policy in any significant way, I hope I will say: Go forward; God bless you; I am glad you were able to reach an agreement to clean up your States because you fought very hard to win the cold war. For those who are worried about the safety issue in my State, I appreciate the concern. I did not make up this scenario. I am reacting to input from my State. I have been involved in the negotiations. They called me. They drafted the language and they have told me, and sent letters--the Governor and the environmental regulators: We have a deal, Lindsey, that we can live with. We have already closed up two tanks of the 51. So we know in South Carolina, unlike the other two sites, we can extract the liquid waste, grout the tank, and have it not affect the ground water because we have done it twice and we are trying to move forward at a faster rate. They are telling me: Lindsey, we have a deal that will allow us to clean up the tanks and get the liquid waste out 23 years ahead of schedule and save $16 billion. I say to my colleagues, I cannot make that happen unless you allow it to happen. If it does happen in Idaho and it does happen in Washington, and I believe it will one day, you are going to have to do the same thing for those States. To my friends in New York, the waste stream you are discussing and that you talked about on the floor is not remotely similar to the waste stream we are talking about here. This is defense waste. To my friends in Maine who have spent nuclear fuel, it is covered under a whole different section. Here is what you have to understand. If you have spent fuel rods in your State, defense waste has priority in Yucca Mountain. If we are going to insist the cleanup standards be beyond what good science says and we are going to take that extra 23 years and spend that extra $23 billion, you are going to run out of space in Yucca Mountain to send your spent fuel. I say to my friend Senator Enzi, thank you. Every State has an obligation to help where it can. South Carolina can retain the film on the bottom of these tanks in a safe and sound manner, and it is not necessary to extract it, take 23 years, and spend $16 billion to send it to Nevada. We can safely take care of it in South Carolina. We have done it twice and we want to do it more so we can get this waste out of the tanks, because the biggest threat to my State and to all the States is seepage and leakage of the waste. Washington has a problem. Of all the States, Washington needs to reach agreement to make these tanks dry. I don't want to be a Washington. I don't want to look back 10 years from now and have this process slowed down to a crawl and my ground water get contaminated. The NRC has said this is safe and that what is left in the tank is no longer high-level waste; it meets the definition of low-level waste. About hearings, Senators Allard, Inhofe, Domenici, have been talking about the plans to clean up the tanks in three States for well over 4 years. The Department of Energy has been working with each State with a separate cleanup plan for a long time. They have been negotiating with Washington since January. We have discussed how you would treat South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington through hearings in an exhaustive manner. If you make us have more hearings, I am going to be right back here asking you to bless this agreement because the agreement has been a collaborative process that has been going on for 2 years and all you are going to do is throw us in chaos because if we can veto each other, then we will never clean up. If you are insisting on a standard that fits all of these sites, it will never be reached. Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the transcripts from the Armed Services hearing of February 25, 2004--what we talked about, the waste cleanup process; Senator Domenici's Energy and Water Subcommittee hearing of March 31, 2004, same topics discussed; and pages 1 through 47 of the EPW committee hearing of July 25, 2000. My colleagues, I need your help. I want to make sure the tanks don't leak. We have a sound plan that will not affect your States. It will only help mine. I want to help you. Please help me.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I have letters from the mayor of Jackson, SC, which is down site; the Aiken Electric Cooperative; the Economic Development Partnership from Aiken; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has blessed this project saying that what is left in the tank is waste incidental to reprocessing; the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has looked at this amendment; the North Augusta Chamber of Commerce, a community on the other side of the site; and the SRS Retiree Association, people who worked their whole lives out there supporting this. Mr. President, quickly, we will have more time to talk. This is a big deal to my State. Similar efforts are ongoing in other States, and I hope they get there. I am not going to do anything to prejudice their ability to get there on their terms. I am simply asking that the deal struck between the environmental regulators and our Governor in South Carolina be approved so that we can clean up the rest of these tanks, the 49 remaining, in an economically and environmentally sound fashion. That is all this has ever been about.