Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. They do, and when they come back home because of what we did last year they get health care for 6 months. But after that 6 months, 25 percent of them go back into the civilian world where they have no health care, zero. That is not right. That is not like every other Federal employee who is part-time. That is not right and we cannot afford to let that continue to happen because we are going to be needing these men and women more than ever. Their families are stressed. This is a chance to spend a little bit of money on people who are giving everything, including their lives and their limbs.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors: Senators Allen, Murkowski, Lott, Coleman, DeWine, Leahy, Clinton, Lincoln, Corzine, Dorgan, Bingaman, Murray, and Landrieu.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I just need 10 minutes to speak on the amendment. Just to conclude this debate, this debate has been going on for a very long time, more than a year, on how to best take care of the Guard and Reserve Forces in terms of their health care needs. It is an honest debate, sincere debate. Mr. President, 85 Members of the Senate voted last year on this very amendment. I think I understand why they voted to extend health care benefits to the Guard and Reserve, full time, and with the premium to be paid for them. It makes sense for our military needs. Forty percent of our people in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be Guard and Reserve members. Let me explain as best as I can how this works. If you are a member of the Guard and Reserve today, while you are serving in that capacity you have absolutely zero health care benefits offered to you from the military. A part-time Federal Government employee, a temporary Federal Government employee receives health care benefits. So go home and explain that one. You can be a part-time Federal employee, work in the Senate or the House, and you get health care. You can be a part-time citizen soldier, training to defend America, and you get zip. Now, it is true when you are called to active duty you get everything an Active-Duty person gets. The reason is because you are on active duty. That is not that great of a benefit, to pay you like somebody right next to you and to give you the same benefits because you are doing the same job. The point we are trying to make is, there is a problem in the Guard and Reserve community when it comes to health care. Mr. President, 25 percent of the people called to active duty, as I stated before, from the Guard and Reserve community are unable to go on active duty because of health care problems. I would argue that we need a better health care network covering our Guard and Reserve members and their families, from a readiness point of view. Let's talk a little bit about retention. The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday--and this is back in January--that the 205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems were being masked temporarily because reservists are barred from leaving the military while the units are mobilized in Iraq. In this prison abuse scandal what we found was that the MPs in that jail, and some of their associates, were due to go home, but they couldn't go back home because they were needed in Iraq, and they had the rug pulled out from under them, causing tremendous morale problems. ``This is the first extended duration war our Nation has fought with an all-volunteer force,'' said LTG James R. Henley, the head of the Reserves. ``We must be sensitive to that and we must provide proactive, preventive measures to prevent a recruiting retention crisis.'' 1-21- 04. ``We got a real retention issue,'' said Republican Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, our Governor and a member of the Air Force Reserve. ``We are going to see it emptying when people's tickets are up and when Guardsmen are not stepping up to the plate.'' You know, I am not sure that is true. Patriotism is high. To prevent them from getting out, we need to be thinking of what we can do to make it a more attractive job. But let's say you stay in. What can you do to honor your service to our country? This Congress has spent $400 billion on Medicare improvements. Let's talk about money for a minute. We are trying to get every senior in the country to sign up for a discount card because we want to help seniors. Great, good idea. We are trying to spend $1 billion a year for 5 years to give Guard and Reserve members continuity of health care coverage, and we are arguing about the money? We spent $20 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money in Iraq. We gave it to the Iraqi people, to build their hospitals, to build their schools, to build their roads, to build their fire departments, and their police stations, to train their army. Do you know what. The money is needed. I wanted to loan some of it because they are sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil. I like helping people but I want people to help themselves. So when it came time to write this amendment we did strike a balance. Here is the balance. Right now, as a Guard and Reserve member, you are a part-time Federal employee. Unlike every other part-time Federal employee, you get nothing. So here is what we are suggesting. If you want to, you can sign up for military health care year round. It will be eligible for you and your family--you will be eligible for that program. But while you are a Guard or Reserve member you are going to have to pay a premium like a Federal employee. I wish we could get the Iraqi people to help pay some of the money back, but we are not. So they are going to make a contribution. This is not a free deal. They have to pay like every other part-time Federal employee. Put them in that same category. They deserve to be in that category. Here is the difference between an Active-Duty troop and a Guard and Reserve member. No. 1, an Active-Duty troop is doing a great job, and we should pay them more. Senator Warner has done a great job improving benefits for Active-Duty people. Our Armed Services Committee in the Senate has been second to no one in trying to make a better life for those who serve our country. My hat is off to them. We just have a disagreement over this particular amendment. But we are daily improving the benefit package of Active-Duty people. By God, they deserve it. But here is why it will not affect recruiting. The Pentagon has started this argument. It is the most bogus argument I have ever heard. It is that if you offer TRICARE eligibility for the military members who would have to pay $1,800 a year for the benefit, as a premium for a family, that somehow that will hurt recruiting for active duty. Here is your choice if you are going to pick between the two programs. You have a Reserve job or a Guard job that allows you to work one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year, and you get to retire when you are 60. The Active-Duty person gets a full paycheck, gets full health care benefits, gets a retirement after 20 years. There is no way that is going to compete and take people away from Active-Duty Forces. How are you going to raise a family working 2 days a month? They are part-time employees in a vital job, to defend America. Unlike every other part- time Federal employee, they are not eligible for Federal Government health care, and they should be. We are asking them to pay a premium unless they are called to active duty. That is a fiscally responsible balance. We spent $20 billion of the taxpayers' money to make Iraq a better place. We spent $400 billion and counting on a prescription drug program for our seniors. Here we are, trying to get $5.4 billion over a 5-year period to cover 300,000 families who have suffered beyond description, in terms of leaving their homes and their jobs for pay cuts. Most Guard and Reserve members, when called to active duty, leave obligations behind, greater than the military paycheck. They make more money in the civilian world and when they are called to active duty they take a pay cut and we don't make up the difference. But they know that going in. There are small things that mean a lot to these people, and this is truly small, in terms of money. It is two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget. Mr. President, 25 percent of the people are unable to go on active duty when called to the Guard and Reserve community because of health care problems. This amendment more than pays for itself. The money is well spent. It is affordable, and there are many programs in this budget that cost more than $700 million that, if you ask the taxpayer to choose, I think the Guard and Reserve community would win every time. How many bills do we pass every year that spend billions of dollars on questionable programs? This is the one area upon which we can all agree. The Guard and Reserve community needs a better benefit package because they are being asked to do more than ever. They are dying at a greater rate this year than last year. What has happened in the year when we first debated this? There are more of them and they are dying at a faster rate. The father of TRICARE is Senator Warner. This is why I object to committee markups. No. 1, the entire cost of TRICARE under the committee markup is borne by the employer community and the reservists. The Government doesn't contribute one penny to the health care needs of our Guard and Reserve members. That is wrong. The unsung hero of this whole war effort, when it comes to the Guard and Reserve community, is the employer. Wouldn't it be nice if we could take a load off of small businesses and large businesses which have guardsmen and reservists and share in the cost of health care along with the Guard members themselves and take them off the payroll? It is a small thing. It would mean a lot to employers. Employers have paid the difference between active pay and civilian pay voluntarily, and in huge numbers. We have done nothing to thank them. Taking care of the health care needs of our Guard and Reserve Forces is one less problem an employer has to worry about. I ask the 85 Members of the Senate who voted last year for this very same measure, which is now $300 million cheaper and going down every minute because we are trying to make it cheaper, to step to the plate and say to the Guard and Reserve community: We got it. We understand your sacrifice. We understand your stress. We understand your family is having health care coverage problems. Twenty percent of them have no health care. They are bouncing from one group to the next, and we are going to fix that. We are going to give you an option. We are going to ask you to pay some, but we are going to make your health care life better. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for this amendment from the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, the Reserve Enlisted Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, along with the National Guard Association of the United States.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, these letters are not just words on paper. I challenge every member of the public and every Senator to go back home and spend a few minutes in a Guard and Reserve unit and ask about TRICARE for those who have been on active duty. Does it work? Senator Warner deserves great praise because it is working. Ask the question: If you could sign up for TRICARE year round and pay a premium, how many of you would do it? Hands would be raised. It would be a great benefit to the 300,000 forces. It would be good for their families. It would be good for retention. It is affordable, and it is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I would like a couple of minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, following those eloquent words of the chairman, this is not about who cares about our military; we all do. This is about priorities and what we are going to do when we say we care. The law of the country is such that, if you are a part-time Federal employee working 16 hours, you are eligible for Federal Government health care. If you are a part-time citizen soldier training to defend your country, answering calls for hurricanes and natural disasters in your State and providing homeland security, you get zero. We need to fix that. The committee bill puts a proposal on the table that goes as follows: The guardsmen and reservists pay some; the employer pays the other 72 percent. Your Government doesn't contribute 1 penny to the health care needs of the Guard and Reserve community. Mr. President, 25 percent of the Guard and Reserve called to go on active duty can't go because of their lack of health care. We need to invest in their health care because they are keeping us free. Medicare has a $400 billion prescription drug benefit that has just been passed. I voted no because I am worried about the explosive cost to the future and our grandchildren not being able to afford it. I got outvoted. It is a program that is in existence. You can sign up for a discount card today. You ought to look into it. We gave $20 billion to the Iraqi people who are sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil and we are not asking for 1 penny back in payment. We are going to build schools, roads, highways; we are going to spend $25 billion--more, probably, before the day is over-- supporting our troops to support Iraq. Our bill allows Guard and Reserve families and Guard and Reserve members to be part of the military health care system year round. When they are not called to active duty they have to pay a premium of $1,800 a year for their family, just like a part-time Federal employee. People in Iraq are not paying anything back. It is a total gift. Mr. President, $400 billion to provide discounts for every senior in America--$400 billion. This costs $1 billion a year for 300,000 families. There are bills in this Senate and this House where one bridge costs more than the health care program needs of 300,000 families. I will take a backseat to no one about trying to save taxpayer dollars. I would argue, if the taxpayers could be here today and if they could vote to spend this $1 billion to make sure the citizen soldier is treated as every other part-time Federal employee, they would say: Here is my wallet, take what you need. This idea we can't afford it is bogus.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. The way the program works, you can be a temporary employee working 16 hours, work a year, then get health care, and you pay a premium. If you work 16 hours a week, you can get full- time health care benefits paying a premium. What a Guard member does, he works 2 days a month, 2 weeks a year, and 40 percent of the people in Afghanistan and Iraq come out of that pool. Now they are getting killed. It is not an average, everyday part-time job. The people who are left behind, the families, take a pay cut. The average Guard and Reserve member, when they get called to active duty their pay goes down, but they don't complain. They go, I say with all due respect.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 2, 2004 at 10 a.m. to hold a business meeting to consider pending Committee business.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on nominations.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on fire fighting aircraft.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Role of State Securities Regulators in Protecting Investors.''

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 2, 2004, at 10:15 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on the situation in Iraq.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 2, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on the Greater Middle East Initiative.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to offer the TRICARE amendment, and I send it to the desk at this time.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, before we get started discussing the substance of the amendment, I think it is important that I make a comment about how the amendment came about, and that this is the Daschle-Graham amendment. Senator Daschle has been gracious enough to let me offer the amendment, but the truth is, without his support it would never have happened. I have enjoyed tremendously working with him and others to try to find some common ground in terms of helping our Guard and Reserve communities facing unprecedented problems from the war on terrorism. They are doing a terrific job, just as are our active-duty troops. This has been a bipartisan effort. We worked on this last year. Senator Daschle offered the amendment last year. We made some progress. There was a compromise reached for the uninsured Guard and Reserve members to have $400 million to allow them to have full-time health care through the military health care system. That program was not implemented to my satisfaction. I doubt if Senator Daschle was pleased, but at least we did make some progress. Chairman Warner has been very gracious in allowing us to offer this amendment and has tried to work with us at every turn. Senator Clinton was one of the original cosponsors, along with Senator DeWine. I could make a fairly lengthy list of Republicans and Democrats who tried to find some common ground when it comes to the Guard and Reserve community and their participation in the war on terrorism. What we have before the Senate today is a result of that bipartisan effort. I listened to Senator Daschle talk about his visit to South Dakota. I had a similar visit in South Carolina when people kind of urged us to get our act together and do more in common, find some common ground up here. I think we found that today. Guard and Reserve members, most Americans would assume, are covered in terms of military health care, but they are not. I think most Americans find it surprising that if you join the Guard or Reserve you are not entitled to military health care unless you are activated. The truth is, if you are a Guard or Reserve member, you have to work at least one weekend a month and 2 weeks a year. But the big joke among the Guard and Reserve is, ``What a heck of a one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year job'' because so many of them have been called to active duty for extended periods. By the end of this year, 40 percent of the people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will be members of the Guard and Reserve, called to active duty for probably a year or more. The reason that is so is because the Guard and Reserve community possesses unique skills that are essential to winning the war on terror. Mr. President, 75 percent of the people flying the C-130 in Afghanistan and Iraq come from the Guard and Reserve community. These air crews come from Air Guard units and Air Reserve units. The C-130 is an indispensable asset in the war on terrorism. It is a four-engine prop plane. It was not the leading edge weapons system in the cold war. But when it comes to the war on terrorism, it can land in short spaces and take off in short spaces and haul people and cargo under some pretty adverse conditions. When I toured Iraq last year with fellow Senators, we had nine C-130 flights going in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. All nine flights were manned by Reserve crews. Ninety percent of the people in the civil affairs component of the military are Reserve or Guard members. What do the civil affairs folks do? They are the ones who go around to Afghanistan and Iraq and teach democracy. They help local government organize at the equivalent of a city or a county level. They are helping judicial systems start. They are civilian lawyers and judges and administrators who leave small towns and big towns and they offer their service to the military. That service is being offered in Afghanistan and Iraq and is completely indispensable. We will never win the war on terror unless we get some democratic principles in the Mideast, and the civil affairs units are the leading edge folks providing that service. Another group that is highly valuable that is heavily laden in terms of Guard and Reserve participation is military police. I know our Presiding Officer is a former member of the Reserve component, legal officer. He probably has a lot of MPs from Alabama who have been called from active duty to go to Afghanistan and Iraq and Bosnia and perform that function. The military police force has a way to go. Major combat operations are over, but we know from our PC screens, what we read and hear from what is reported from our troops, Iraq and Afghanistan are very dangerous places. What we are trying to do is create order out of chaos. The military police are not only trained in combat skills but policing skills. High numbers of the military police units that are being activated to thwart the war on terrorism come from the Guard and Reserve communities. Most of them have civilian connection to law enforcement. They come from small towns all over America--from Alabama, South Dakota, and South Carolina. They are two of the five cops deployed because they are military police Reserve or Guard units. The point of this discussion is to try to inform the body that the reason the Guard and Reserve community is so heavily utilized is because it has unique assets and skills which are essential to win the war on terror. The commitment from this group will continue to grow probably over time--not less. It is now time for the Senate, the House, and the administration to work together to upgrade the benefits of the Guard and Reserve community. One of the big problems we find from the war on terror is about 25 percent of the people called to active duty from the Guard and Reserve community are unable to go on active duty because of health care problems. That percent of the people in the Guard and Reserve do not have health care insurance in the private sector. In my State, our adjutant general, Stan Speers, who has done a wonderful job leading our National Guard, says about 50 percent of the people in the National Guard in South Carolina have no health care in the private sector. What happens when you are called up? You have rigorous military standards in terms of being activated and sent off to war. The leading disqualifier for going onto active duty after being called from the Guard and Reserve is dental problems. When you think about it, a lot of private health care plans have very limited dental coverage. What we have been working on for well over a year is to provide full- time access to Guard and Reserve members and their families to military health care called TRICARE. If you are called to active duty from the Guard or Reserve, or if you join the Active-Duty services, you will became a member of TRICARE. Our chairman, Senator Warner, is the father of TRICARE. It was through his initiative that we created this large network of hospitals and doctors that go beyond the limits of the base. We signed up doctors and hospitals all over the country and the world to provide health care to our military members and their families. TRICARE is getting better every year. It is a free benefit. But for those who serve in the military, you earn what you are getting because nothing is really free. You are risking your life for our freedom. But there is no contribution required of Active-Duty personnel. What Senator Daschle, myself, and others have tried to do is cover this problem for the Guard and Reserve community in a creative fashion. Let us allow them to enroll in TRICARE. What would be the benefit of that for their country? Number one, our Guard and Reserve would have continuity of health care. They would be in a health care system that is providing quality health care. It would be a great recruiting tool. If you join the Guard or Reserve, you and your family would be eligible for military health care. That would be a good attraction to get new people to come in. It would be a great retention incentive for people to stay in who have already signed up because they could get their health care through the military. It would be a great relief to employers. The unsung hero of this whole operation in terms of the Reserve community is employers. If you go without your employer for a year or greater, many employers pay the difference between active and civilian pay. More times than not, when a person is called to active duty, they get a cut in pay. Their military pay is less than their civilian pay. Their families suffer because the military members stand in harm's way. The support network for the Guard and Reserve is not nearly what it is for Active-Duty people. They get a cut in pay. We are trying to lessen the effects on hardships on families. We are trying to make it an incentive for Guard and Reserve participation. Here is how the program would work. If you join the Guard or Reserve, you and your family would be eligible to enroll in TRICARE, if you chose to. You would be asked to pay a premium. Unlike your Active-Duty counterparts who receive this without any cost sharing, you would be asked to pay a premium. I think that is fair. The premiums we set up, mirror what Federal employees have to pay in terms of their match for their health care. It is a good deal for the Guard and Reserve members and their families. It lessens the cost. It would be a shared responsibility, for the member would have to contribute and the Government would have to contribute. I didn't know this until I got into this debate. If part-time Federal employees work 16 hours a week for the Federal Government, they are eligible for full-time participation in our health care plan. If you are a temporary employee, after a year you are eligible for full-time participation without a Government match. I think that is a good idea. I think this is fair and balanced for part-time Federal employees. I think it would be a shame for a part-time citizen soldier not to at least have that benefit. We are not talking about a normal job. Everyone who serves this country by working for the Government is doing a good thing. People in the Guard and Reserve are not only serving their country in a positive way, but they are literally risking their lives. They take a cut in pay. They go from home into harm's way. Last month, the casualty rate among the Guard and Reserve community had a tremendous bite because there are more and more Guard and Reserve people in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is going to stay the same or get worse over time because we can't win the war without these people. This amendment would allow, if the members chose, a chance to join TRICARE for themselves and their families. They would pay a premium, and the Government would pick up the match. The committee markup allows the Guard member to join and pay a premium. It requires the employer to pay the remaining amount of the TRICARE premium. I appreciate that effort, but the reason I think that misses the mark is because a lot of Guard and Reserve members don't have a private health care plan with which to cost share. You are going to have a very convoluted system. And at the end of the day, I feel very strongly we should not outsource the health care needs of the Guard and Reserve family--to be shared by the military member and the private sector alone. I think it is very important for us in the Senate and in the House to say this is a government responsibility also, that it is fair to ask the Guard and Reserve family and member to contribute. But I think it is incumbent upon us to also have the Government contribute. I have yet to find a taxpayer who is upset with the idea that we are going to pick up some of the health care costs for our Guard and Reserve members and their families for protecting our freedom. The cost of the program: It depends on who you ask. But the latest CBO estimate is about $5.4 billion over a 5-year period. I think there are ways to lessen that cost, and I will be very openminded to that. But we are talking about a $2.2 trillion budget, and a defense budget approaching $400 billion. My question to the body is, Is that $1 billion a year a wise expense of money? The question is, Can we afford not to? This is about two- tenths of 1 percent of the entire military budget; 300,000 families would be affected. These families are being called upon to do more as Guard and Reserve members than at any other time in the history of the Nation. They don't have health care provided to them by the Government, even though they are fighting to make sure we are all free. That is an inequity we need to fix. A cost-sharing arrangement between the Government and the military member is the way to go. It would help our employers greatly. If you hire a Guard or Reserve member, and if they can sign up for military health care, it is less expensive for you to hire them and they became a more valuable employee. The employer community has suffered greatly in this war. They have gone without key employees for well over a year's time. They have been paying the bills as if the person were still there, and they need some relief. I hope we can, in a bipartisan fashion, pass this amendment that Senator Daschle, myself, and others have worked on for well over a year. This amendment, simply stated, would allow Guard and Reserve members and their families access to full-time military health care, so when they are called they will be fit to fight, that they will have the security that continuous health care provides families, and they will not be bouncing around from one group to the next. This is what often happens. If you are in a health care plan in civilian work, you are called to active duty, you leave that health care plan to go into TRICARE. On one of the C-130 crews I was flying with, there were two first-time dads on the crew. One of them had a private plan with Southwestern Bell that continued health care for the family voluntarily. They do not have to do that. The other was a realtor who had private health insurance. When he was called to active duty, his wife had to change doctors and hospitals. That was very traumatic. We can lessen that trauma. We can give an option to the military member and their family, the Guard and Reserve military member, to have the same set of doctors and hospitals year round. They do not have to bounce from one group to another. When they are called off active duty, they lose their TRICARE eligibility within less than 6 months and have to change doctors and hospitals twice. It creates a serious disruption. Twenty-five percent have no health care in the private sector. This would solve that problem. In terms of the money, it is the best deal you will ever find to defend America. It will save money. If 25 percent of the people called to active duty cannot be utilized because of health care problems, a small investment in their health care makes good sense from a business equation. If necessary, we will find offsets. I hope the Senate today, in a bipartisan fashion, will extend TRICARE health care benefits to every Guard and Reserve member who chooses to sign up in a cost-sharing fashion to make sure those people are ready to go to war when called, that their families are better taken care of, and that the concerns of continuity of health care will finally be addressed forever. This is affordable. It is the right thing to do. Our Guard and Reserve families and members have earned it. They have earned this benefit. I yield for my colleague, Senator Daschle.

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of one of my constituents, William Michael Roth, and to commend him for his tenure as Chief of Police for the Town of Lexington, South Carolina Police Department as he leaves after 29 years of service. Chief Roth has served as a law enforcement professional for over 31 years. Under his leadership, the size of the Lexington Police Department has more than tripled and it has received many awards for its efforts in public and youth safety. Roth exhibits an innovative and hands-on approach to law enforcement that has greatly benefited the police department and the Lexington community through the establishment of new safety services and the creation of outreach programs to individuals of all ages. Roth was instrumental in the creation of local school-based programming such as School Resource Officers and DARE classes for elementary and middle school students. Roth oversaw the creation of an ``Adopt-a-Cop'' Program within the Lexington Police Department that was recognized as the 2003 Public Safety Program of the Year by the Municipal Association of South Carolina and as a Model Cities Program by the National League of Cities at their annual conference. Roth was directly responsible for the establishment of an investigative division in the Police Department that includes a Child and Elder Abuse Investigator and a full time Victim's Advocate. Roth has been an asset to the Lexington Police Department and to the State of South Carolina. I invite you to join me in thanking Chief William Michael Roth for his service and dedication to quality law enforcement and the safety of the citizens of Sourth Carolina.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I am going to read from it. The question Senator Hollings raised was, well, if our Governor knew about this he would not agree to this because he is a good environmentalist. We will agree on this: Our Governor is a good environmentalist. He has been a great Governor trying to change the culture of the way we do business in South Carolina. I have been working with him for well over a year to make sure our State gets those tanks cleaned up in our lifetime and we do not have to worry about ground water leakage. The folks in Washington have a real problem on their hands, and I want to help them. The people in Idaho have problems on their hands, and I want to help them. I do not think they are being very responsible in terms of how we are dealing with each other's problems. Here is a chronology of what has been going on in these three States. Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington have been separately negotiating with the Department of Energy about trying to agree on standards in their States to remediate the high-level waste that is left over from the cold war. Washington has a particular problem where they have tanks that are leaking into the ground water. That needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. The question is, What is clean? The question is, Are we going to allow South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington to work with the Department of Energy to take care of their specific needs and specific problems in an environmentally sound manner or are we going to give one group a veto power over everybody else? I hope we do not. January 26, 2004, Congressman Hastings and Senators Murray and Cantwell sent a letter to Governor Locke and Secretary Abraham asking them to work together to resolve the ongoing dispute pertaining to waste classification. On February 2, the deputy secretary and Governor Locke connected. Governor Locke indicated he would designate someone to enter into a discussion on behalf of the State of Washington. That has been going on in South Carolina far before January 26. It is going on in Idaho. About 8 or 9 years ago Idaho reached agreement about certain aspects of cleaning up of the Idaho sites. Each site has a different problem and it is working with DOE in a way that is good for everyone, the State and at the Federal level, to clean up these sites. The reason we are in court in Idaho is DOE unilaterally issued an order that gave them the authority to set the cleanup standards without consulting with the States. They were trying to change the game or the agreement Idaho had with DOE, and Idaho sued and we--South Carolina and Washington--joined as a friend of the court, saying we will not sit on the sidelines and watch the Department of Energy have the unilateral right to set cleanup standards. That is what we agree upon. The amendment I have before the Senate does two important things. It does not allow the Department of Defense to withhold funds to Idaho and Washington unless they reach a similar agreement with South Carolina. It does not make what is going on in South Carolina a Presidential event, in terms of how it affects other States. It limits what is going on in South Carolina to South Carolina. It does not disadvantage Washington or Idaho. They have the right, the obligation to enter into an agreement, if any, with DOE. What we are doing in South Carolina only affects South Carolina. I will tell you in a moment what people in South Carolina who are in charge of our environmental needs say about this agreement. I will read the letter from the Governor here in a moment. The Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the State of Washington, along with the State of Idaho, exchanged drafts and held conversations between January and April. There is a lot of paperwork out there that shows Idaho and Washington have been trying to do the same thing we have been doing in South Carolina. Here is the difference. We reached an agreement South Carolina likes that will get our tanks cleaned up in an environmentally sound manner. And listen to this, it allows the tanks to be cleaned up, remediated, and closed 23 years ahead of schedule, and it saves $16 billion to the American taxpayer. I hope Washington and Idaho can get there. If they ever do get there, if they ever do reach an agreement with the Department of Energy where the Governor says I like it, where the environmental regulators say I like it, where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says this is waste incidental to reprocessing, that this can be done in a way that is environmentally sound--I hope I will help, not stand in the way. So much was said that is so wrong about this issue. To my two friends from Idaho, you have taken some political abuse here that is so far from the truth that it is mind-boggling. What Senators Crapo and Craig have been doing is they have been working with me, in conjunction with all three States, to make sure they get the money they are entitled to regardless of what we do in South Carolina, and they have been kind enough to work with me to make sure my State's agreement can go forward. We are doing nothing to prejudice the lawsuit of the State of Idaho or their ability to reach an independent agreement. I can assure you, this is not blindsiding anybody because there is paperwork from January all the way through to recent months between Idaho and Washington, talking with DOE about trying to find an agreement. On February 25, 2004, Jessie Roberson, the Assistant Secretary for Energy for Environmental Management came before Senator Allard in a hearing and talked about this extensively. He was asked numerous questions. I ask unanimous consent to have an excerpt of that hearing printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. With that, to be continued. Thank you. Happy holidays.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Allard's comments. I will try to explain this amendment the best I can and as briefly as I can. Several States played a very key role in winning the cold war by making sure we had a strong and effective nuclear deterrent. South Carolina is one of them, as are Idaho and Washington. They are States that have cold-war legacy materials. As Senator Allard suggested, the Federal Government has been working with these sites for decades now. We spent billions of dollars-- billions and billions and billions of dollars--to clean up the cold-war legacy that exists at the Savannah River site and other sites. To be honest with you, we have spent a lot of money and have done very little cleanup. From a taxpayer point of view, from an environmental point of view, the longer you put this off, the more it costs, and the more damage that can be done. I have an amendment that would allow $350 million that has been put on the table by the Department of Energy to accelerate cleanup--$350 million has been put on the table in, I think, a very creative fashion to accelerate cleanup at these sites, putting new money on the table. Here is a little history about what has gone on in terms of how DOE and the sites have been dealing with each other. There are 50-plus tanks of high-level waste in South Carolina as a direct result of winning the cold war, cold war legacy materials. The State of Washington has certainly done its share in helping win the cold war. They have a waste tank problem. Idaho has waste. These three States have a problem. It is now time to create an environment to fix the problem for each State. Two years ago the State of Idaho entered into a cleanup agreement with the Department of Energy, setting standards that the State of Idaho would agree to help remediate the environment and clean up the sites in Idaho so that we could move forward to have a new day in Idaho. Washington has been negotiating with the Department of Energy to come up with acceptable standards for cleanup of the waste in tanks and other areas, and there are ongoing negotiations. South Carolina, for over a year, has been negotiating with the Department of Energy about how to clean up 51 tanks that contain high- level nuclear waste. People in South Carolina want the waste cleaned up. They want it done in an environmentally sound manner, and people in South Carolina want it done sooner rather than later. They are conscious of the cost to the taxpayer. All three States at some stage have negotiated with the Department of Energy about waste in their particular States and how they can find agreement between the Department of Energy and the State to remediate the site. I am here to say, thankfully, that the Department of Energy and the State regulators in South Carolina have come up with a plan that will allow these 51 tanks, 2 of which have already been cleaned up, to be cleaned up and to close them, that is environmentally sound, in my opinion. But it is just not my opinion. The people responsible for the groundwater and the environmental safety of South Carolina, in conjunction with the Governor's office and the Department of Energy, have come up with an agreement to allow these tanks to be closed. The tanks will be cleaned up in a manner that will save $16 billion compared to the old plan, and it will allow the tanks to be closed up 23 years ahead of schedule. The issue is what is environmentally sound cleanup for the State of South Carolina and any other State that has this legacy material. No. 1, no State should be forced to accept standards that they find unacceptable for the State in terms of their environmental needs. The amendment I have authored and that is part of the base Defense authorization bill ratifies the agreement that South Carolina has achieved with the Department of Energy. Under that agreement, my State regulators tell me that the permitting process of how you close up a tank and when you close up a tank and when a tank can be closed up is a collaborative process between the State and the Department of Energy. They feel they are protected. They have reached an agreement that the last 1.5 inches of waste that is in the bottom of these rather large tanks can be environmentally remediated in a manner safe for South Carolina that would prevent people from unnecessarily risking their lives to go get that last inch and a half and save $16 billion. What does it mean? It means that some things that were going to go to Yucca Mountain don't have to go because to send them to Yucca Mountain is not environmentally necessary and it is not financially sensible. I hope other States can find a way to get there. I know Washington is talking. I know Idaho had an agreement 2 years ago. All I am asking is that South Carolina be allowed to execute this agreement that is good for South Carolina and the Nation and will move forward and clean up in a sound manner. The amendment I am offering today doesn't deal with that issue. It deals with the idea that the $350 million to clean up sites in Washington and Idaho, that the money due to Washington and Idaho shall be spent on cleanup, that the Department of Energy cannot require either one of those States to enter into an agreement to get this cleanup money like we have in South Carolina. My goal has been to do two things: that my State could reach a sound agreement with the Department of Energy to get it ratified for the best interests of South Carolina--and the Nation--and not do anything in South Carolina that is going to harm any other State's ability to negotiate on their terms and to reach an agreement that is sound for their State, and not to change any standards of what would leave South Carolina going to Yucca Mountain or any other repository. So this language requires the Department of Energy to spend money to treat the waste in South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington. It also allows the agreement to be financed in South Carolina. I know there is some disagreement on this issue. I welcome the debate. That is what the Senate is all about, having two sides of every story. But this is not something we just came into lightly; this is something that has been going on between the Department of Energy and South Carolina for a very long time. Similar processes are going on now in Idaho and Washington. I am asking this body to join with me to make sure that the Department of Energy spends the money to treat the waste in these three sites, and that we not bind any site by the agreement in South Carolina but we allow the agreement between South Carolina and the Department of Energy to be ratified. Not only is it good for my State, it is good for this Nation if we can clean up these tanks in an environmentally sound manner 23 years ahead of schedule and save $16 billion. That is my hope. As to what is left behind, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has looked at the 1.5 inches of material left in the bottom of the tank and has classified it as waste incidental to reprocessing, which is a separate category from high-level waste. The people in South Carolina who regulate our environment and have an obligation to protect the State's groundwater and other environmental obligations have said that this waste that is left can be dealt with in a sound manner, and to get the 1.5 inches totally out would risk people's lives and would take unnecessary time and expense, and that we are going to secure these tanks in a way over which South Carolina would have control. I didn't come to Washington to tell my State it is not a player in controlling its waste. I hope Washington will allow us who have these sites to work in a sound manner for the benefit of the taxpayers in the State and the Nation and for the environmental needs of our State. That is what this is about. If we stay the old course and we never allow anybody to do anything other than the most extreme groups out there in terms of what this is all about--and there is politics in every issue, and there should be. There are some people who have an agenda that is not about the groundwater in South Carolina because they don't live there. Some of them are very well motivated, but some of them have an agenda to make cleaning up these sites very difficult, to the point that they don't care what it costs, and they are not trying to get a fair standard. They want to make it take as long as it takes and spend as much money as is necessary and send everything to Yucca Mountain and other repositories because they have an agenda that we don't want to produce any more nuclear power and run out of places to store fuel rods. I don't want to be part of that agenda. I want to be a part of an agenda that allows each State that has these waste materials to be able to control their destiny, do it in a way that is safe for the State and makes sense for the Nation. That is exactly what we have accomplished. Idaho and Washington have tried to do the same thing we are doing. They have tried to work with the Department of Energy to get an agreement. We have been successful. I will never, as a Senator, leverage one of my sister States here to have to agree to something to which they don't want to agree. That is not my goal. I hope the Senate and the Congress will allow an agreement that has been negotiated to its full term to be approved and to help South Carolina save some money. I am ready to agree on a small time agreement, a large one, or whatever time agreement we can have on this amendment, and have a vote.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. The Senator has done a good job characterizing it. No. 1, this amendment makes the money flow for treatment. There is the $350 million in committee with regard to the argument that there is a fence built around it. If there is any concern about it, this amendment knocks that fence down. The money has to be spent on treatment of waste. There is a lot of waste to be treated. But it also allows for a disposal plan agreed to between South Carolina and DOE. Other States, the Senator is right, have been negotiating and trying to find a disposal plan. We have just been successful, that is all. Other States have different needs and tank problems. We don't have tanks leaking as they do in Washington. Washington has different needs and concerns. I don't want to wait 23 years and allow these things to leak as we try to clean up the last inch and a half; I think that does more damage than good. This is where we do agree. DOE, by order 43.5, I think it is, tried to issue an internal order allowing them to unilaterally go into these States and say: Here are the cleanup standards, take it or leave it. Then you had a court case in Idaho where South Carolina joined as a friend of the court, with an amicus brief, saying, no, we don't want the DOE unilaterally telling a State to take it or leave it. That is why we joined as a friend of the court. We think that is a bad policy. What we want to do, and what all three States have tried to do, is make sure cleanup occurs in an environmentally sound manner, where the States are involved. What we have been able to do in South Carolina is reach that agreement to have the waste stream cleaned up. What is left in the bottom of the tank we believe we can handle in an environmentally sound manner. Some people don't want us to do that. That is not their agenda to accomplish that. It is my agenda that we accomplish that when and how we can. We are not going to let the DOE unilaterally decide. That is what this amendment is about. It doesn't allow the Department of Energy to take money away from a site. They have to let the $350 million go. The language in the bill, which Senator Allard helped me write and get passed, ensures that South Carolina is protected. Now we need language to ratify that agreement.