Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. INHOFE. I see there are those wanting to be heard on the other side. Let me make a couple comments. We are talking as if this is some program that we are putting together. This is a feasibility study. This is something to determine what the costs would be, what risks are out there, what the potential threat is that we could be guarding against. We are talking about a defensive system. I have heard all of the arguments. Since we do have some time, I will let them use some of their time, and then I would like to respond so we can stay on schedule. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. When are we scheduled to have our vote?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. 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 Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at 11 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of the Hon. Alan Greenspan, of New York, to be chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 4:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on Oversight of Pipeline Safety.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1530, the Tribal Parity Act.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 15 at 10:45 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding crude oil supply, gasoline demand and the effects on prices.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing titled ``A Review of Current Efforts to Combat Terrorism Financing.''

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I will ask one question. In your amendment, you talked about 30 days for considering technical assistance agreements and licenses. Will you explain what that 30 days is and the significance of that?

Mr. INHOFE. Well, I appreciate that. First of all, I appreciate all the Senator from Colorado has done in this field. I say to the Senator, in your statement, when you talked about that some of our allies, some of our friends, such as the Japanese, might be more susceptible because of their proximity to North Korea, I remind my colleagues what happened 6 years ago this coming August when the North Koreans did in fact fire a multistage rocket that had the capability of reaching the United States of America. So that threat is still there for us. I was going to ask my colleague a couple questions about his amendment. But if somebody else desires the floor, that is perfectly all right.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a courageous Oklahoman who died saving the lives of his men. Staff Sergeant Erickson H. Petty grew up in Fort Gibson, where he graduated from high school in 1993. Eric, as he was known, aspired to military service early, enlisting in the Oklahoma Army National Guard when he was 17. Upon graduation, he joined the active duty Army, where he served for nearly 10 years. Eric has an extremely successful career in the Army, serving as a recruiter for a time and as a scout in the 1st Armored Division. On May 3, Staff Sergeant Petty and his men were guarding a weapons cache in Salman Al Habb when they came under small arms fire. Petty ordered his soldiers into the protection of their Humvees, taking cover last to ensure the safety of his men. That decision, which so clearly demonstrated his sacrificial leadership, cost him his life. Staff Sergeant Petty had two passions: his family and his country. Those who speak of him constantly refer to his devotion to his wife Kimberly, and especially to Colton, his 9-year-old son. In the words of a longtime friend, his relationship with his son was ``his center.'' Still, the call of duty was strong. Staff Sergeant Petty had the option to stay a recruiter, to stay with his family. He chose to serve, and for our sakes gave up safety, family, and finally his life. America needs more committed servants like Staff Sergeant Petty. His life and death stand as a clear example of what it means to be a patriot, even at great cost. Eric Petty heeded his country's call, and for that we are all grateful. We would do well to remember his sacrifice as we celebrate his commitment to family, friends, and nation. He was Oklahoma's son and America's hero--Staff Sergeant Eric Petty. specialist james e. marshall Mr. President, I also pay homage to Army Specialist James E. Marshall, who last month made the ultimate sacrifice for his country-- his life. Although he was only 19 years old, Specialist Marshall was a dedicated defender of America and knew the value of freedom and the sacrifices freedom sometimes demands. For his service and his sacrifice, I am proud to honor him on the Senate floor today. Specialist Marshall was a member of the First Battalion, 21st Field Artillery Regiment, of the First Cavalry Division based at Fort Hood, TX. A native Oklahoma from my hometown of Tulsa, Marshall was raised by his mother, Pamela. Specialist Marshall and his mother were very close; indeed, he pursued military service both to protect his country and to help provide for her, as she had done for him for so many years. We hold her in our prayers. During his senior year, when classmates were pursuing scholarships and jobs, James Marshall was planning a different route. He had been considering military service for some time, and he saw it as an opportunity for personal development and a chance to prove himself. Specialist Marshall died tragically on May 5 when the vehicle he and a fellow soldier were riding in was struck by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad, Iraq. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I ask that we now pay tribute to James Marshall, who knew the true meaning of service and sacrifice. I am proud of him, and proud of his demonstrated commitment to winning the freedom of those he did not know. We will not forget this Oklahoma hero, this American patriot--Specialist James Marshall. corporal scott michael vincent Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a remarkable man. Corporal Scott Michael Vincent was a classic Oklahoman: a hard worker and a leader who was dedicated to his family, his faith, and his country. Corporal Vincent hailed from one of Oklahoma's great small communities, Bokoshe, where he graduated from Bokoshe High in 2000. He had longtime aspirations to join the Marine Corps. When choosing a quote for his high school yearbook, he selected ``semper fidelis,'' the Marine Corps slogan he exemplified through his life--and his death. He achieved his goal of serving with the Corps when he joined last year, completing a tour in Afghanistan before volunteering for an extra tour in Iraq. On Friday, April 30, Corporal Vincent was serving as a scout near Fallujah, in Iraq's Al Anbar province. While his unit was halted, a suicide bomber approached his vehicle from the rear and detonated his explosive device. Corporal Vincent and one other marine were killed, and six of their comrades were wounded. Scott Vincent's remarkable life was confirmed by the way people in his hometown reacted to his death. Over 400 people in a town of 405 came to funeral services on May 6. Our small towns are like families, and they are the fertile ground from which outstanding, selfless leaders like Corporal Vincent emerge to take on the mantle of service to their nation. In this time of trouble, we remember Corporal Vincent. We remember his family, and we grieve with them for their fallen son. In his life and his death, he set a high standard for all of us to follow. We will never forget him--Corporal Scott Michael Vincent. chief warrant officer two lawrence s. colton Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a courageous Oklahoman who gave his life in defense of his Nation and his fellow soldiers. Chief Warrant Officer Two Lawrence Shane Colton hailed from Guthrie, OK. Shane was serving as an attack helicopter pilot in Iraq with the 1st Armored Cavalry division's Company C, 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment. Shane joined the military as a clerk in 1992, eventually working his way up to Staff Sergeant and then through Warrant Officer Candidate School. He was highly decorated and regarded as a skilled and capable pilot by his fellow soldiers. On Easter Sunday, April 11, CW2 Colton and CW3 Chuck Fortenberry answered a call for help: a Coalition convoy had been ambushed after being halted by an improvised explosive device. The soldiers were pinned down under heavy fire and significantly outnumbered, and in desperation they called for relief. Shane and Chuck headed right for the scene of the battle and opened fire on the insurgent positions with 30-millimeter chain guns, killing many of the terrorists and destroying a building they were using. The convoy was able to escape, but the Apache was shot down by a small surface-to-air missile, and their rescuers were lost with it. Shane was a man beloved by his friends and fellow soldiers because of his selflessness and optimism. To quote one of his comrades, Shane would help you whenever you needed it too. If you had a problem with your car all you had to do was call him up and he would be there. He was also a whiz on computers and electronics. If it was broke he could fix it. The best thing about Shane was his attitude. No matter how crappy things were he always had a smile on his face and would say something to make you feel better. Chief Warrant Officer 2 Colton was 32 years old when he lost his life. He left a young family to defend his country, knowing full well the risk he was taking. Ultimately, his commitment to his fellow Americans in Baghdad and at home would require his life. I know his friends and family realize that he died a true hero, worthy of the respect and gratitude of every American. They will miss him dearly, and our thoughts and prayers are with them today, particularly with his wife Inge and their children Jennifer and Lance, and with his parents Loren and Kathy Colton. And though we are all grieved by the loss of this man, we shall never cease to be proud of him--Oklahoma's son and America's hero--Chief Warrant Officer 2 Lawrence ``Shane'' Colton.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, does the Senator from Florida wish to speak about the subject of the day?

Mr. INHOFE. I yield for the Senator and ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from Florida.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have heard so many stories about a great man, the Gipper, and none of them are surprising because he was always such a gentle person. I have to share with you that I had the honor, about a month ago, of giving the commencement address at Oral Roberts University. When I did, I used a lot of the 1964 speech ``A Rendezvous With Destiny.'' I said it should be required reading for anyone to graduate at any level in America to read ``A Rendezvous With Destiny.'' It is a speech that changed my life. Ronald Reagan gave it in 1964. I remember I almost memorized that speech. In fact, I still have most of it memorized. As a result of that, the next year I decided, well, if he did it, if he really feels this concerned, I should, too, and I went and filed for office and ran for the State legislature. So that is how I happened to get started. But that is not as far back as we go. I believe I have had the honor of knowing Ronald Reagan longer than any other Member of this U.S. Senate. In fact, I am sure that is true. Even though I represent the State of Oklahoma, I moved to the State of Oklahoma when I was 8 years old. I moved from Des Moines, IA. We were enjoying the poverty of the Depression at that time. Everyone was poor, not just us. My dad was an insurance adjuster. Ronald Reagan was a sports announcer for WHO Radio in Des Moines, IA, and they shared the same office. They became very close friends, and they used to play the pinball machine at that time. You guys would not know what that is. I guess they don't have those anymore. On Saturdays they would play cards for a couple hours. All I know is, it was a room above the drugstore. But the man I had seen occasionally at that time I thought of as a giant. He was a very large person. We were not all that large. I remember that when I was growing up. Well, we moved to Tulsa, OK, shortly after that. But we did not lose contact. As the years went by, Ronald Reagan, who my dad affectionately referred to as ``Dutch,'' ``Dutch Reagan''--every time there was a ``Dutch'' Reagan movie we would see it. You see, we never went to movies. In those days, we just didn't go to movies except when there was a ``Dutch'' Reagan movie. It did not matter what it was conflicting with. One time we went to Durant, OK, in the southern part of Oklahoma. My home was in the northern part. I remember driving on those roads at that time. I say to my good friend from Minnesota, the roads were--if you could average 30 miles an hour, you were doing well. So we drove 5 hours down, watched a ``Dutch'' Reagan movie, and drove 5 hours back. We never would consider missing a ``Dutch'' Reagan movie. Then, of course, the famous speech took place in 1964. That is when he expressed his interest in politics. But at that time my father had gotten to where he was much better off, our family was. So when ``Dutch'' Reagan was going to run for Governor of California, my father became one of his first large contributors. Again, the friendship had never stopped at any point. So he won. At the time, after he served in that capacity and ran for President-- I know that the Presiding Officer right now knows what I am talking about because he and I were both mayors of major cities back at the same time in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected President. I was the mayor of Tulsa, OK, for 4 years. Ronald Reagan and I were closer together than we had ever been before--I was out in Oklahoma--because he had me do his domestic policy stuff. He would have me on TV. At that time, they did not have CNN and Fox, but they had ``Good Morning America'' and the ``Today'' show. So I would be debating all these liberal Democrat mayors on the Reagan policy, which was the dynamics of the free enterprise system as opposed to the Government doing everything, and they worked beautifully. So I am sure I spent 10 times as much time with him at that time than I do with George W. today, and I am here in Washington. But it was a real pleasure. Those of us present--and right now I see in the Chamber the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Norm Coleman, and the Senator who is presiding, Mr. Voinovich--all three of us were mayors. We understand what a hard job it is. When I was mayor, I was able to build a low-water dam, and President Reagan referred to it in his speeches as the largest totally privately funded public project in America. That was the dynamics of Ronald Reagan. That is what he thought, that Government should be doing less, people doing more. And it worked. What a visionary the guy was. When I see things that are going on today and I remember things that he said many, many years ago--right now, we have a serious problem in America. Probably one of our most serious problems is we do not have an energy policy. So we make speeches. All of us make speeches on a regular basis about why we do not have an energy policy and why we should have one. I would like to read to you what Ronald Reagan said. This was in 1979. Listen carefully because this applies to today, but it was 1979: Solving the energy crisis will not be easy, but it can be done. First we must decide that ``less'' is not enough. Next, we must remove government obstacles to energy production. And we must make use of those technological advantages we still possess. It is no program simply to say ``use less energy.'' Sound familiar? Of course waste must be eliminated and efficiency promoted, but for the government simply to tell the people to conserve is not an energy policy. At best it means we will run out of energy a little more slowly. But a day will come when the lights will dim and the wheels of industry will turn more slowly and finally stop. The answer obvious to anyone except those in the administration it seems, is more domestic production of oil and gas. We must also have wider use of nuclear power within strict safety rules, of course. There must be more spending by the energy industries on research and development of substitutes for fossil fuels. And on and on and on. That speech very well could have been made today because the problem still exists today. And he knew it was coming. When he talked about the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, that was something no one seemed to care about. They did not see there was any great risk facing the American people. Yet he saw that risk. The risk was there. We all know now the risk is very real, even today. So he looked back at the ABM treaty that was put in place in 1972. He said: This is senseless now. It may have made sense in 1972 when Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon put this in, but the policy of mutual assured destruction is not a good policy. So he said: What we will have to do is have a very strong country. And he was quite scriptural. He quoted from Luke: If a strong man shall keep his court well guarded, he shall live in peace. And that is exactly what he was doing in his rebuilding of the defense system of America. We are so thankful he did that in those days. But he was saying we must do away with the ABM treaty. Finally, after all this time, we recognized 2 years ago he was right, and we got rid of the ABM treaty--how prophetic. Tax cuts, this is something that he gave credit to his predecessors. He said: We do need more money. The best way to get more revenue for Government is to reduce tax rates. He said: That is what President Kennedy did 25 years ago. He said: He reduced tax rates. And keep in mind, that was a Democratic President. And by reducing tax rates, he almost doubled the revenue coming in at the end of his term. It gave people the freedom and money to invest and to breathe and to reinvest in the country. So that is the problem. That is what this President George W. Bush has been trying to do. That is the reason we are out of the recession he inherited, and we are now coming out because we have reduced some of those marginal rates. We know we need to do more. This is what the President did. If you remember, in 1980, the total amount of revenue that was generated from marginal rates, taxes paid by people, was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $446 billion. It almost doubled in that 10-year period. Yet that 10-year period was the period where we had the largest reduction in taxes, thanks to Ronald Reagan, of any 10-year period or 8-year period in our Nation's history: marginal rates going down from 70 percent to 28 percent. Yet it had the effect of doubling the revenues. This guy knew it, and he did it. That is good advice for us today. I have mentioned quite often that it should have been required reading for all of our graduates to read ``Rendezvous With Destiny.'' Let me read a couple things to remind us on this very solemn occasion how grateful we are now to have had a President who was so prophetic. In talking about the freedom of our country, he told a story about Castro and how a Cuban had escaped Cuba in a small craft and had floated over to the south shores of Florida. As his small craft came up there was a lady there, and he told the lady about the atrocities of Castro's Communist Cuba. After he was through, she said: I guess we don't know how lucky we are in the United States. He said: How lucky you are? We are the ones who are lucky. We had a place to escape to. That is what Ronald Reagan said, that we would be the beacon of freedom, the last place in the world to escape to. If we lose it here, there is nowhere else to escape to. On the recognition of the dynamics of the free enterprise system, he said: They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. He practiced that. It worked. His domestic policies worked. He was prophetic. He accurately described such things as: We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. Ronald Reagan talked about bureaucracy, how difficult it would be for him to cut down the size of Government. He is the one who said, in that very famous speech in 1964, there is nothing closer to life eternal on the face of this Earth than a Government agency once formed. And he went on to explain the reason for it. The reason for it is very simple. Once a Government agency is formed to respond to a problem, the problem goes away, and the bureaucracy stays there. The longer they stay there with nothing to do, the stronger they become. So that happens. He was able to cut that down by reminding people that that problem did exist. He said in 1964: Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way that you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender. That was the message he had. You had to be strong. You had to have a Nation that believes in God, and you had to stand up for those things and not lie down and surrender. That is what people were trying to do at that time. He said in that speech: There is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance. That was his rendezvous with destiny. I look at American heroes like the senior Senator from Hawaii who fought so valiantly and is very familiar with what this President did for our U.S. military. I will say this: The rendezvous with destiny was a very real one. Military historians have looked at us and said there is no way we could have won the Revolutionary War. Here we were, a handful of farmers and trappers with crude weapons and the greatest army on the face of the earth was marching toward Lexington and Concord, and they fired the shot heard round the world. As Ronald Reagan would reflect on that great speech by Patrick Henry, he said there are three sentences in that speech that answer the questions of military historians, but people have forgotten about it. We are not weak when we make the proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Armed in the holy cause of liberty in such a country as that which we possess, we are invincible by any force our enemy will send against us. And besides, we will not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who reigns over the destiny of nations who will raise up friends to fight our battles with us. Those are the favorite three sentences out of the ``give me liberty, give me death'' speech Patrick Henry made. For me, I think about the honor to be able to stand here in the Senate and, on behalf of the American people and on behalf of my wife and myself and our family of 20 children and grandchildren, to say we thank Ronald Reagan for his sacrifices. We thank God for Ronald Reagan. We thank God for his life. We thank God for allowing us to share that rendezvous with destiny with Ronald Reagan. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the time. I think one thing the last three speakers, including myself, have in common is no one has been more highly supportive of the Guard and the Reserve than Senator Nickles, Senator Sessions, and myself. In fact, I daresay I probably have spent more time talking about the dilemma of the Reserve component in all of the deployments as we continue this, and the reason we are having to do it is because we are, of course, at war. During the 1990s, we saw what happened to the military. It went down and consequently we had an end-strength problem. We are now talking about maybe 30,000 more troops and we are going to have to do something to help the Reserve component. Most of these people are gainfully employed. They have occupations. We cannot expect them to continuously be deployed while at the same time the employer is letting them go. That is the whole idea of a Reserve component. So although I oppose this amendment, I have to qualify it by saying how much I have always supported the Guard and the Reserve. I think all members of the Guard and Reserve, certainly in my State of Oklahoma, are aware of that. I just returned from Afghanistan where the 45th is stationed. They are doing a great job training the ANA to fight their own battles. They are doing a tremendous job. The problem is this does not have to happen in a vacuum. If it happened in a vacuum and we were able to give them full-time TRICARE, I would vote to do it in spite of the fact there would be, as my senior Senator from Oklahoma stated, many people who would go ahead and drop their coverage, saying the Government already supplies it, and that would be a problem. They talk about the costs being $11 billion, $12 billion, and as high as $18 billion. That is because we have yet to have any kind of a study to see how many people are out there who already have coverage or how many people are out there who actually would want to even have this coverage. Our chairman and our committee did a great job--it has not been said on the floor enough--because in this area of TRICARE, 90 days prior to deployment they have coverage. For 6 months after coming back, they have coverage. So it is not something we have not already looked at and decided to be very fair. I think we have a good compromise that is in the mark that is up for consideration on the floor today. I say to my good friend from South Carolina, he has another amendment that frankly I am very much for. It is one having to do with the movement of nuclear waste. I think he is dead right on it. That was a good policy until the National Resource Defense Council came in and filed a lawsuit against the DOE. Before then, everything was going fine. This would rectify that problem. This amendment is being offered by Senator Graham of South Carolina. I am a strong supporter of that particular amendment, but on this amendment one cannot assume this is going to happen and it is going to come out of nowhere. We have to come up with $11 billion, $12 billion, $14 billion, or $18 billion somewhere. It has to come out of Defense. This is the problem we have. I served as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee all during the 1990s, and I saw what was happening to our military, knowing one day this day would come and we would have to make some decisions regarding end strength, modernization, and all of the other programs that are bleeding today. Now if the Senator from South Carolina wants that money to come out of the MOX, mixed oxide, fuel facility in South Carolina, $368 million is authorized in this bill, maybe he feels strongly enough about it he would like to do that, or the waste incidental to reprocessing the WIR program, $350 million. These programs I am sure are worthwhile, but the money has to come from somewhere. My fear is it will come out of the modernization account, and right now I think we all know some of our potential enemies and adversaries out in the field are better equipped than we are. We have to correct this thing. So the money has to come out of somewhere. It is going to have to come out of some of the Defense accounts. I feel sorry for our chairman, Senator Warner, who is going to have to lead us in making some decisions on where to make cuts if this amendment passes. It is very serious. Again, there is no stronger supporter of the Guard and Reserve than I am, but this is something that is more money spent and not directed properly and it has to come out of some place where we have a very serious problem. There is nothing free in this bill. I do not know of any Guard and Reserve members from my State of Oklahoma who have talked to me about this and have offered places it should come out of or even called me up to support it. It is an amendment that is going to have to be defeated. We need to save all the money we can in order to keep our current authorization program. There is nothing we can cut, that I can think of right now, that would be appropriate. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will clarify a couple of things that were said by the distinguished Senator from Washington that I am sure she believes are true but need to be elaborated upon. First, characterizing the consideration of going back to the old policy as something that happened in the middle of the night, something that happened in the dark, something that happened in a less than honest way is not at all accurate. I suggest two things. First, I chaired the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 1998 and 1999. During that time, of course, we had jurisdiction over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. During that time, they had countless hearings. They had comment periods. They talked about this out in the open, with people given an opportunity to be heard. I happened to be chairing the committee that had oversight at the time. I remember that very well. Second, I suggest this was discussed in the Senate Armed Services Committee. It certainly was not something that was done in any way that was less than totally honest and totally done in the daylight. By suggesting that Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Jack Reed and the other Members on this side of the issue did something that was not out in the open, I don't think is quite fair. We had a hearing this morning with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is an oversight hearing we have had ever since 1998. That is when, in the NRC, I believe we saw a major change. They have done a good job. The NRC says we should manage waste based on the risk it poses, not how it is defined. The Department of Energy was attempting to pursue this very policy when it was stopped in its tracks. What stopped it? Several of my colleagues already mentioned a lawsuit was brought against the DOE by the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is the allegedly charitable organization that uses a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars in the form of discretionary grants to achieve its goals. Three weeks ago I spoke in the Senate about the spurious and misleading advertisement run by the NRDC. This organization places a higher priority on imposing ridiculously stringent environmental standards than on essential elements of national security. They have proven this many times in the past by filing lawsuits to limit the Navy readiness exercises and otherwise hampering our military. Now the NRDC has hamstrung the Department of Energy in the faithful execution of its responsibilities. This amendment allows the DOE to pursue the best plan to dispose of this nuclear material. That plan saves our taxpayers money. It shortens the amount of time the waste remains in the tanks. It is a safe way to do it. It is a well-thought-out way of doing it and one that has been the subject of a lot of daylight. It is merely going back to a policy that has worked for a long period of time. We know the background. Sometimes it is necessary to repeat it. During the cold war, the national security of the United States necessitated the building of nuclear weapons. Now, 50 years later, we are faced with the legacy of this effort and the need to clean up the sites where there is waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The creation of this waste was a necessary result of the chemical processes needed to make defense nuclear material. We all understand that. Last summer, this very important cleanup effort, which is the single largest ongoing environmental risk reduction project for the Department of Energy, took a crushing blow when the district court issued a ruling that created significantly illegal uncertainties and enormous problems for the Department's tank waste cleanup at the Savannah River site, the West Valley, the Hanford site, and the Idaho National Engineer Environmental Laboratory. Unless these legal uncertainties are resolved, the only path the Department of Energy could in theory pursue that does have the necessary legal certainty would be to involve sending all the waste in tanks and the tanks themselves to Yucca Mountain no matter how long or short lived is the radioactivity they contain. This dramatic change in course would increase the costs of the cleanup itself in terms of human lives sevenfold and also delay completion of simply emptying the tanks and treating the waste there by four decades, thereby further substantially increasing the risk, as the NRC pointed out, to the public health and safety during the time period by leaving the waste in tanks for that much longer. It would also increase the cost of simply emptying and treating the tank waste, according to the DOE estimates, by an additional $86 billion, only $1 billion less than last year's supplemental appropriation for the Iraq war, for approximately a total cost of $138 billion. We are talking about something really big. The estimates for delay and the additional costs do not take into account the very complex logistics of transporting and disposing of all the additional waste at Yucca Mountain or the complex logistics of preparing for disposal, transporting, and disposing of the tanks themselves. Keep in mind, it is not just what is in the tanks. The tanks themselves would have to go there and be disposed of at the Yucca Mountain facility. These would also add additional decades and tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars to the cleanup cost. Furthermore, under this scenario, the number of canisters of waste that would be transported to Yucca Mountain would increase from 20,000 canisters to approximately 200,000 canisters. I know there are a lot of members in the Senate concerned about the transport of waste to Yucca Mountain. That would increase it tenfold. Some have asked, why not just authorize and appropriate $350 million needed for the cleanup activities in fiscal year 2005 and force the Department of Energy to continue its work? This is not a responsible path. If the Department of Energy constructs the facility necessary to prepare waste for disposal as low-level or transuranic waste and prepare the waste for disposal and then finds out after the fact that it lacked the legal authority to classify the waste in this manner, hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money would already have been wasted and years of cleanup work lost. The Department may have actually made it harder to put the waste in the form needed to dispose of it at Yucca Mountain. The fundamental root cause of the dilemma that faces our Nation today is the ambiguity presented by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's definition of high-level waste and that, if left unclassified, is producing this technologically irrational result without environmental benefit that, in fact, increases health and safety risks. It is up to this committee and this Congress to resolve ambiguity in order for the cleanup of the sites which played such a key role in the national security of our Nation. The language before the Senate clarifies the ambiguity, and I urge adoption of this language. What had happened on this, back in the time it was considered in SAS Committee--the Senate Armed Services Committee--was that it was an amendment to actually go back and do it as it had been done before, to do it in the best way, as determined by the multitude of hearings that were conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and which were conducted during the time I chaired the oversight committee. So we were there. We knew it was taking place. The thing that I guess bothers me the most--I see the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Senate floor. We acted very responsibly. This was not a partisan issue. This was a bipartisan issue. To infer in any way that things were done in the dark of night or in any way inappropriately is to say that I and several others--certainly the chairman of the committee; certainly Senator Joe Lieberman; certainly Senator Jack Reed, who supported this effort and supported the Senator from South Carolina--were acting inappropriately. I do not think that is realistic. By the way, it has been said several times that there is some doubt as to what the NRC's position is on this issue. I will read the last paragraph of a letter that was sent to me, on May 18, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. This last paragraph says: It is our understanding that some opponents of DOE's proposed plans believe that the tanks and the waste residuals should be disposed of as high-level waste in a geologic repository. While either approach could potentially be implemented within NRC regulatory requirements, we note that removal of the tanks, packaging of the tanks and residuals for transport and disposal, and disposal of the waste at a geologic repository, if feasible, would incur significant additional worker exposures-- That is human lives. We are exposing individuals. and transportation exposures-- The transportation exposures we have talked about on this floor many, many times-- at very large financial costs. You might conclude that, at this time, with all the terrorist threats around, these could become prime targets while being transported. Still quoting the letter: Whereas, if DOE's proposed plans meet appropriate criteria, such as those used in NRC's previous reviews, then the NRC believes that public health and safety can be maintained while avoiding unnecessary additional exposures and risks associated with removal and transport of the waste and unnecessary additional expenditures of Federal funds. I hope this letter satisfactorily addresses your questions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter from the NRC to me dated May 18 be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield the floor for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. I ask the manager if I could have 20 minutes, but I will probably not take that long. I am saving the best for last and I don't want to miss it.

Mr. INHOFE. We have a lot of commissions and a lot of organizations in the committee that I chair. We have some 17 Departments for which we have oversight and we deal with on a daily basis. When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was originally formed, it was to have the expertise and the knowledge as to what is going to assure the most safety for the public in the cheapest way you can get things done. They have done a good job. We have a lot of organizations such as this throughout Government. We have CASAC, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. We look to them because they have expertise. We look to the NRC because they have expertise. I do not want to imply that any of the Members here would have necessarily less expertise than the NRC, but I suspect that is the case. So we rely on that expertise. Here we have the Department of Energy with all of its experts saying: This is the safe way to do it. This is the cheapest way to do it. And we have the NRC, which is charged with the responsibility of public safety, saying: This is the best way to do it. So I believe, when the time comes, we need to look at this rationally and not try to make disparaging remarks about some of the members of the Armed Services Committee in our consideration of this amendment. Keep in mind, this was years in the making. Six years ago we started hearings on how to properly dispose of this, and the conclusions they came to were unanimous. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. I remind the Senator from Washington, if she is concerned about the action that we had proposed with the Environment and Public Works Committee, I chair that committee and I am waiting to be heard concerning this issue because I also have a lot of interest in it. I appreciate the fact that the Senator is suggesting our jurisdiction should be heard, and that is what I am waiting to do. Will the Senator agree with that?