A bill entitled "Nuclear Waste Cleanup Act".

Mr. President, I have enjoyed listening to my colleague here today. I have been concerned with some of the things my good friend has said.

First of all, you know, I don't think anybody doubts that what we have done over there has put a tremendous dent in terrorism all over the world. Because of the fortitude of this President and this administration, we have stood up against terrorists all over the world--in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but if the truth be known, in so many other countries that are fraught with terrorism. I can't talk much about that. But I can say one thing as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, this administration is on top of this all over the world.

Probably the two greatest experiments right now against terrorism are in Afghanistan--where we are slowly moving that country forward, and showing a commitment of the international community in a very real sense. But we are having a very difficult time locating al-Qaida, which slips across the border into the ungovernable part of Pakistan.

But probably the most important steps taken against terrorism in our world today are being exhibited right in Iraq.

In the 20th century, Iraq has been a very difficult area, with all kinds of animosity, tribal difficulties, tribal conflicts. Many of the current conflicts existed long before we had to get involved, and it is easy to understand why this is taking a bit of time to get done.

The one thing I am very concerned about--that is happening day in and day out with colleagues on the other side of the floor--is the undermining of morale, the undermining of efforts of our troops over there. What happened to the unity that we need in America to support our troops?

War is never easy, and it is never something that is pleasant. Anybody who thinks you can just walk out of Iraq and turn it over to the Iraqis at this point is not only whistling ``Dixie,'' but you have to wonder if the confidence is really there.

By the way, having said that, I feel badly that the minority leader in the House of Representatives has chosen to use such unwise language about the President of the United States. She should be ashamed of herself. I know she is trying to do her job over there. I think having two parties is very important, and having a loyal opposition is important as well. But to call the President incompetent, and to call what he is doing incompetency undermines every soldier in Iraq and every soldier around the world. It undermines our fight against terrorism. It undermines so many things that are important for our country, for our troops overseas, and for those who are here. It undermines our young people who might believe that bunk. If you hear it enough, and the media presents it enough, people start to think that type of irresponsible talk is true. It is not only not true, it is irresponsible, mean, vindictive, and, I think, beneath the dignity of any leader in either of these bodies.

It is one thing to criticize the policies. That is what we are here to do. It is one thing to criticize a different philosophy and to try to have yours preeminent, but it is another thing to undermine the President of the United States at a time when we are in grave difficulties in Iraq and when we are in a grand experiment of trying to institute a democracy in lands that have never seen democracy.

I think it undermines our whole process for anybody to come on this floor and say we should leave now and let Iraq go to the Iraqis. What do you think we are doing? On June 30 we are going to turn it over to their Governing Council.

By the way, Mr. Bremer will be gone. He has this incredibly difficult job of trying to bring peace and stability to Iraq. He has done a terrific job. But he is going to be gone, and we are presently in the process of installing John Negroponte--one of our top foreign service officers, one of the top Ambassadors that this country has ever had, who is a wonderful family man who has been all over the world, who has served this country with distinction all over the world--to be our Ambassador in Iraq. This is evidence that Iraq is going to be turned over to the Iraqis. But the Iraqis should be the first to say we still need the stability that only the United States of America and its allies--some 30 countries--can bring about.

I am getting a little tired of people saying this is just the United States against the world. There are some 30-plus countries over there supporting us.

I would like to ask, Where are the French, where are the Germans, where are the Russians, and where are the Chinese? Aren't they concerned about stability in the Middle East? Of course not. They do not share the vision of sacrifice to improve other parts of the world.

I also would like to make a few points on what we have done over there and what we are in the process of doing, hopefully without being undermined by Members of this body or Members of the other body. This is not a grand experiment, but it is a grand approach to try to put a dent in terrorism and create at least a representative form of government in the Middle East, for the first time in history in that area in Iraq.

The U.S., in coalition with allies, has overthrown two terrorist regimes. We have rescued two nations. We have liberated 50 million people.

Some of these people who have been such big critics ought to acknowledge that.

This coalition has captured or killed almost two-thirds of these terrorist leaders around the world--two-thirds of the known senior advisers and al-Qaida operatives.

We have captured or killed 46 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq. We have disrupted terror cells on most continents. Mr. President, $200 million in terrorist assets have been seized or frozen.

Where are the compliments coming from the other side about some of these things?

The coalition persuaded Libya to eliminate its chemical- and nuclear- related programs and to accept international inspection.

That could never have happened without the President of the United States, George W. Bush; without his guts and without his ability and his foresightedness.

We have put up with Libya all these years, with their irresponsibilities in the Middle East and all over the world, and their sponsorship of terrorism.

Had it not been for what President Bush has done, Libya would never have agreed to start acting responsibly. Qadhafi would never agree, but he has finally seen the handwriting on the wall that we have some fortitude.

Al-Qaida is taking credit for getting rid of that government in Spain. They are going to try to do that to us. We had better be prepared for it.

This President has had the guts to stand up to the terrorist threat. He is certainly the leading person in the world who has had the guts to stand up against international terrorists for the first time in a long time.

I want to give all of the counterparts from the other nations credit, too, especially Tony Blair in Great Britain.

If we eliminate tyranny in the Middle East by doing what is right in Iraq, it is amazing what we can do throughout the rest of the world. It would be a crucial setback for international terror.

Just some of the things that have been accomplished over there in Iraq: The Transitional Administrative Law approved by the Iraqi Governing Council is now considered the most liberal basic governance laws in all of the Arab world. It assures freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly. It also guarantees the fundamental rights of women for the first time.

That wouldn't have happened but for the courage of this coalition built up by our President.

Iraq's new currency is the most heavily traded currency in the Middle East now. A lot of people do not know that. Oil production and power generation are way beyond prewar levels now.

It is the United States that has done that and the coalition partners that have done that. It is a tremendous advancement.

All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are now open in Iraq.

Can you imagine in that, in this short period of time, we have accomplished this?

The coalition forces have rehabilitated more than 2,200 schools, all 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 health clinics are now open.

Health care spending in Iraq has increased 30 times over prewar levels. There have been so many great changes over there that the Iraqi people are now starting to feel they have a chance.

If we leave now, the old regime's gangsters can come right back in, the instability can come back in. We have not finished the job of helping the police be able to run the place.

There are now 170 newspapers being published in Iraq.

As of May 4, the estimated crude oil export revenue was over $5.6 billion for this year alone. I could go on and on.

I am saying this: Why aren't we supportive of all the good things that have been done and are going on in Iraq? Why are we openly condemning this President, who had the guts to do what is right, and doing it so the whole world can see, so our young men and women are undermined and demoralized over there? Is it political advantage that some people are seeking? Some would say yes. Some might say no. Is it because it is an election year? I think many people would say yes. Is it because some people just hate George W. Bush? The answer to that is yes, too. Is it because of irresponsibility on the part of some in the Congress? Some might even say yes to that, although I personally would not take that position. But some who are saying yes may be right. It is certainly undermining our troops over there, certainly making it difficult for any President to have the guts to do what has to be done against terrorism.

I have worked on terrorist problems from the beginning around here, all 28 of my years. I was the prime sponsor of the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996--by the way, we were trying to put some of the provisions that are now in the PATRIOT Act in that bill. That was stopped by these naysayers and the people who are always talking about civil liberties. What about the civil liberties of the 3,000 people who died on September 11 because we were not prepared because we did not give law enforcement the tools to be able to stop that kind of terrible activity?

I get a little tired, to be honest with you. It is time to stand with this President, as Democrats and as Republicans, and back our soldiers over there. Yes, what happened at Abu Ghraib is not right. We know that. As far as I can see--and I went to Guantanamo Bay last week; I have been in all of the intelligence meetings as a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence--as far as I can see, it is limited to a limited number of people in Iraq who just plain got out of line and acted like goons. None of us can justify any of that. Now that we have made that clear, why do we dwell on it every day, every night, all day long, all evening long, on the news and everywhere else? We know it is wrong and we know darned well we will have to clean it up. And we will because this is a free Nation, and we believe in the rule of law.

I have said maybe more than I should have said, but I was disappointed in the remarks of the minority leader in the House yesterday. Talk about remarks that undermine everything this President is trying to do--and coming from one of our leaders. I hope she thinks it through and does not make any more of these irresponsible comments in the future. I hope we on this side think it through, too, and are more responsible in some of the things we do. It would be wonderful if we could work together more than we are in this body. I have never seen it so partisan in the whole time I have been in the Senate.

F/A-22 Raptor

I will change the subject to something that is very important to me.

I stand before you today as an ardent supporter of the F/A-22 Raptor. I urge that the Senate restore the President's budget by authorizing appropriations for 24 F/A-22 Raptors.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Tyndall Air Force Base to be briefed on the capabilities of this extraordinary aircraft. As a result of these meetings and discussions with the pilots who are training to fly the aircraft and the ground personnel who are learning to maintain the Raptor, I have come to the conclusion that the Raptor is absolutely vital to our national security.

Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has been able to maintain air superiority in every conflict largely due to the F-15C. However, with the great advancements in technology over the past several years, the F-15 has struggled to keep pace. For example, the F-15 is not a stealth aircraft and its computer systems are based on obsolete technology. My colleagues should remember that the F-15 first flew in the early 1970s. It has been a magnificent plane but it is starting to age. During the ensuing years, nations have been consistently developing new aircraft and missile systems to defeat this fighter.

Realizing that the F-15 would need a replacement, the Air Force developed the F/A-22 Raptor. The result is a truly remarkable aircraft.

The F/A-22 has greater stealth capabilities than the F-117 Nighthawk. This is a powerful attribute when one remembers that it was the Nighthawk's stealth characteristics that enabled that aircraft to penetrate the integrated air defenses of Baghdad during the first night of the 1991 Gulf War.

The Raptor is also equipped with super-cruise engines. These engines do not need to go to after-burner in order to achieve supersonic flight. This provides the F/A-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling supersonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. By comparison, all other fighters require their engines to go to after- burner to achieve supersonic speeds. This is not just our country but all the other countries fighters, as well. This consumes a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limits an aircraft's range.

The F/A-22 is also the most maneuverable fighter flying today. This is of particular importance when encountering newer Russian-made aircraft which boast a highly impressive maneuver capability.

Yet a further advantage resides in the F/A-22s radar and avionics. When entering hostile airspace, one F/A-22 can energize its radar system, enabling it to detect and engage enemy fighters far before an enemy's system effective range.

However, one of the most important capabilities of Raptor is often the most misunderstood. Many critics of the program state that, since much of the design work for this aircraft was performed during the Cold War, it does not meet the requirements of the future. I believe that this criticism is misplaced. The F/A-22 is more than just a fighter it is also a bomber. In its existing configuration it is able to carry two 1,000 pound GPS-guided JDAM bombs. Shortly, it will be able to carry the small diameter bomb and in 2008 the aircraft's radar system will be enhanced with a ``look-down'' mode enabling the Raptor to independently hunt for targets on the ground.

All of these capabilities are necessary to fight what is quickly emerging as the threat of the future--the anti-access integrated air defense system. Integrated air defenses include both surface to air missiles and fighters deployed in such a fashion as to leverage the strengths of both systems. Such a system could pose a very real possibility of denying U.S. aircraft access to strategically important regions during future conflicts.

It should also be noted that for a comparably cheap price, an adversary can purchase the Russian SA-20 surface-to-air missile. This system has an effective range of approximately 120 nautical miles and can engage targets at greater then 100,000 feet, much higher then the service ceiling of any existing American fighter or bomber. The Russians have also developed a family of highly maneuverable fighters, the SU-27/30/35, which have been sold to such nations as China. Of further import, 59 other nations have fourth generation fighters.

It has also been widely reported in the aviation media that the F- 15C, our current air superiority fighter, it not as maneuverable as newer Russian aircraft, especially the SU-35. However, the F/A-22 is designed to defeat an integrated air defense system. By utilizing its stealth capability, the F/A-22 can penetrate an enemy's airspace undetected and, when modified, independently hunt for mobile surface- to-air missile operational systems. Once detected, the F/A-22 would then be able to drop bombs on those targets.

Some correctly state that the B-2 bomber and the F-117 could handle those assignments. However, the F/A-22 offers the additional capacity of being able to engage an enemy's air superiority fighters, such as the widely proficient SU-35. Therefore, the Raptor will be able to defeat, almost simultaneously, two very different threats that until now have been handled by two different types of aircraft.

Despite the obvious advantages of this aircraft, there has been resistance to this program in the halls of Congress. As with many military procurement programs, the primary concern is, naturally, cost. This, in part, led to the planned procurement of the aircraft to be reduced from over 600 to the current planned procurement of 277.

In response, the supporters of the F/A-22 devised a new procurement strategy called ``Buy to Budget.'' This strategy capped the total cost for the procurement of the aircraft and forced the Air Force and the Raptor's primary contractor, Lockheed Martin, to cut the cost of the plane. These efforts, so far, have been successful, and last year an additional F/A-22 was procured, solely based on savings.

Unfortunately, as with any complicated aircraft, especially one whose computer power equals that of two supercomputers, schedule delays have occurred. However, these delays have also largely been resolved. Lockheed Martin has placed the former head of its very successful F-16 production line in charge of F/A-22 production. As a result, it is believed that F/A-22 production will be back on schedule by early 2005.

Now, despite this progress, criticisms of the aircraft continue. As a result, colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee have reduced the number of aircraft to be purchased this year to 22. In contrast, the President's budget requested 24 aircraft--2 more.

To be fair, it sounds reasonable to see this as a modest reduction in order to ensure existing production schedules are met and possibly decrease the cost of the aircraft. However, production schedules will be met. Due to the already drastic reduction in the number of aircraft to be procured, many have developed the very real concern that there will not be enough aircraft to meet the operational needs of the Air Force, based on the proven Air Expeditionary Force model. Not having sufficient numbers of F/A-22 for some of these contingencies would be an abdication of our congressional responsibilities, especially now that we are faced with war.

However, I wish to add one final point. I have talked about the capabilities of this aircraft and how those capabilities are designed to defeat the threats of the future. But what impressed me most was the way the pilots and ground crews of Tyndall Air Force Base spoke about the F/A-22. They are truly excited about its potential. They understand that this aircraft will ensure American dominance of the skies for the next half century. These young men and women stand ready to sacrifice so much for us. We owe them the best our country has to offer. Therefore, I respectfully urge the Senate to restore the President's budget proposal on this remarkable aircraft.

Preserving Traditional Marriage

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about preserving traditional marriage--an institution which is under attack from so many directions today.

This past week, as everyone by now undoubtedly knows, the Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court went into effect in Massachusetts. This 4-to-3 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and prohibits the State from defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to reports, more than 1,000 same-sex couples have been ``married'' pursuant to the radical change handed down by the split court.

We all know that it is the legislative branch, and not the judiciary, that makes the laws--or at least should make the laws. But there are some courts, such as the one in Massachusetts, that want to take away the public policy role that the legislatures and people have always had. Senator Talent of Missouri and I wrote an opinion editorial on this issue that was published in Monday's Washington Times. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will not read it, but I will say that people have the right to govern themselves. When a court forces a radical decision on the people--well before the people have had the opportunity to oppose the change--it dramatically undermines democracy's vitality and legitimacy.

Some of the comments from the first same-sex couples to take advantage of the Massachusetts court decision underscore what is wrong with deviations from our culture of traditional marriage. According to the Boston Herald, the first recipients of a Provincetown, MA, same-sex marriage license said: ``the concept of forever is overrated.'' One gentleman in this couple added that he, as a bisexual, and his partner, who is gay, ``think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner. In our case, it is, so we have an open marriage.'' I am sorry, but this simply is not a marriage. I simply do not understand why these two men felt they needed to be declared to be married by the State. There is not even a pretense of fidelity here.

The reason that maintaining traditional marriage is so important can be summed up in one word, and that is ``children.'' Children are simply better off with a mother and a father than with two mothers or two fathers or any other alternative arrangement. Advocates for same-sex marriage cite studies to the contrary, but, as Professor Steven Nock, a leading marriage scholar at the University of Virginia, points out, ``not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.'' Not a single one of those studies was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.

Marriage is not about adult desires for affirmation and benefits; it is about the well-being of children. Two men being intimate are simply not the same as a husband and a wife, and alternative family forms are not just as good as traditional families. The fact is that fathers and mothers both matter to children. The science confirms this, but common sense tells us this as well.

Some advocates for same-sex marriage argue that traditional marriage will continue the same as before. Unfortunately, this has not been the experience of other countries. Some in Scandinavia, for example, witnessed a dramatic drop in traditional marriages once same-sex marriages were permitted or the equivalent thereof. The net effect was to diminish the importance of marriage altogether, and that is what will happen here if we do not maintain the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

It has become clear that we need a constitutional solution to this problem. There is simply no other means of reining in activist judges who seek to impose their will and not their judgment. Some say the Defense of Marriage Act is adequate enough, but based on decisions, such as Lawrence v. Texas, this statute will undoubtedly be struck down. People across the political spectrum, including such liberal stalwarts as Professor Lawrence Tribe, agree that this is inevitable.

Without a constitutional amendment, we are headed for a resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court. We should not and cannot wait for this to happen. We simply must protect traditional marriage now by passing a constitutional amendment.

Some suggest that it is not ``conservative'' to amend the Constitution over such an issue. Baloney. Traditional marriage is perhaps the most fundamental institution in our culture and history. It dates back over 5,000 years. If the only way to protect this institution is by amending the Constitution--and we know that to be the case--then we have an obligation to do so.

What is worrisome to most constitutional scholars, including myself, is that if this supreme court case of one State--a 4-to-3 decision; hotly contested, not only by the court itself but in the State legislature and among the people of Massachusetts themselves--if that is allowed to stand, then will we, under article IV of the Constitution, the original Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was added to it, will we have to give in every other State full faith and credit under the full faith and credit clause to whatever is called marriage done within the State of Massachusetts? There are many constitutional scholars who say we will have to. That does not mean that Utah will have to have same-sex marriages done within our State or any other State in the Union.

It does mean we will have to recognize as valid same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. Now we have people coming from all over the country to Massachusetts to be married so that under the full faith and credit clause that marriage will have to be recognized in their respective States. I cannot begin to tell you the difficulties legally that will come from that type of an approach.

We simply need to resolve this problem. We need to resolve it in accordance with the will of the vast majority of people in this country. Cultural decisions such as this that have existed for over 5,000 years should not be thrown into the wastebasket by an activist court in one very activist liberal State. Nor should an activist court in an activist conservative State impose its will on us. We should, of course, allow the elected representatives of the people to make this decision.

If you don't do that, then you have nothing but another huge, unnecessary, harmful to America culture battle, perhaps for decades. We can name the decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that have caused us to be torn apart in America over a number of issues that, 5 to 4, 7 to 2, the Supreme Court has culturally imposed upon everybody in America.

I don't believe in discrimination of any kind. But like a number of my colleagues in this body, I draw the line when it comes to traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is one of the most important cultural concepts in any country's history but certainly our country's history. This debate needs to occur. We need to think it through. We need to have a constitutional amendment, and we need to support whatever constitutional amendment we can get to resolve this matter.

Having said that, we need to be fair to those who have a different point of view and to find some way of accommodation. Because it is a disgrace that a gay partner cannot go into an intensive care unit to care for or hold hands with or to be with his or her partner, just to mention one. We have to think this through. One way of thinking it through is to come to a conclusion that one liberal State's 4-to-3 decision by a

Supreme Court should not bind everybody in America to recognize something that I believe will be absolutely catastrophically disruptive to our culture.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. My colleague from Texas served on the Texas Supreme Court. He understands these issues very well, serving in a tremendous fashion on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I feel so blessed as chairman to have him and the other freshmen Senators on that committee, each one of whom is playing a significant role in this body and on that committee. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I take a few minutes to clarify points from the debate we had prior to moving off the DOE bill and the specifics of the Graham amendment.

I know my colleague, the Senator from South Carolina, is probably somewhere still in the vicinity of the Senate. I, too, admire the Senator from South Carolina on a variety of issues, particularly on National Guard issues and some of the challenges we have had, both coming from States that have been hard hit economically and challenged with a large number of people participating in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This issue that he and I disagree on obviously is one of utmost importance and certainly one that needs a lot of attention by the Members of this body. We will get that time and attention when we return to DOE after the recess.

I bring up a couple of points made that are the crux of my concern about this legislation; that is, that section 3116 of the underlying bill, the Defense authorization bill, attempts to reclassify high-level nuclear waste into a low-level material and allow it to be disposed of in a different way.

I object to that and I object to the process by which that legislation was drafted. The Senate Armed Services Committee does not have jurisdiction over the ability to reclassify waste. That is a change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act drafted in 1982. If the Department of Energy wants to have that debate, then the Department of Energy should come down here and have hearings before the appropriate committees and discuss that issue. But to have such a major policy change of 30 years' policy since 1982 and 50 years of science saying this is what high-level nuclear waste is and one day changing it in the DOD bill is beyond absurd. Obviously, that is why we have spent time this afternoon talking about it.

The chairman of the committee asked me in a question whether that committee has jurisdiction over the issue. I know that DOE many times has tried with various environmental issues to have them go through the Senate Armed Services Committee, environmental issues such as the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Endangered Species Act. All of those, even though they are DOE issues, do not go through the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, the committee even said they are not part of our issues. Those are environmental policies or policies for other committees and referred to those specific committees.

I read to my colleagues rule XXV earlier regarding what the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee is. It is specific to the national interests that were necessary in creating nuclear fuel. That was an offshoot of the reactors used in the development of plutonium for our efforts in World War II and the cold war, but they do not have the legislative oversight of the cleanup policy. That is the prerogative of other committees, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee.

To make my point, I took section 3116 of this bill, this section that reclassifies waste, and introduced it today as my own legislation and asked for a referral. If we took this section on reclassification now as a stand-alone bill, let's see where it was referred to. That bill, Senate bill 2457, by Senator Cantwell, was referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That proves my point, that this policy change is not the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee should not try, in a closed- door session, in secrecy without having a public hearing, without having a public debate, to change policy of this significant nature which is not the jurisdiction of their committee.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that was also sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman and ranking member asking them not to pass this legislation out of committee, and that it was the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. President, I am trying to make the point that the ranking member of the committee, and now the parliamentarian, have agreed that this is not the jurisdiction of this committee.

I ask my colleagues to weigh that in the time we have away from here, to drop this policy as it relates to trying to reclassify waste without having the proper public hearing and public comment about the issues.

Yes, everyone has heard of DOE attempts to try to reclassify this waste. It is well known that they actually tried to do it by order themselves and were shot down in court. They were shot down in court because specifically they do not have the authority. They have to change the definition under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If they want to do that, debate it on the Hill, have this discussion, and move forward.

I make a point that cleanup around America--whether it is in South Carolina, in the Savannah River, or whether it is Washington State at the Hanford reservation, whether it is Idaho or any other facility in this country--should be continuing. There is nothing about any court case or any court battle that prohibits the Department of Energy from continuing with cleanup. I hope they understand that is the judgment and the clarification of the court that ruled.

If my colleague from South Carolina is hearing that nuclear waste cleanup may be going slow or may be put on hold in the future, that is the absolute wrong message from the Department of Energy. Congress has appropriated funds, has appropriated funds in the past, and they should be going about their cleanup job.

What we are not going to do as a body is whitewash a change of significant nature where we do not have science backing that says we ought to reclassify this waste. In fact, science has been very specific in saying this is not a simple proposition.

In 1990, the National Academy of Science said:

There is strong worldwide consensus that the best, and

safest, long-term option for dealing with HLW is geologic

isolation.

Again, not grouting waste in existing tanks but removing the waste and putting it in a geological isolation, as we have suggested, and others have suggested, at Yucca Mountain.

A 1992 report by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory said:

The grouts will remain at elevated temperatures for many

years. The high temperatures expected during the first few

decades after disposal will increase the driving force for

water vapor transport away from the grouts; the loss of water

may result in cracking . . .

A 1992 study on this issue regarding just pouring cement and sand on nuclear waste and somehow storing it and solidifying it in the ground said there would be a result of cracking.

What we know in Washington State is we already had the cracking of the tanks. We already had a plume of nuclear waste going toward the river. So we already know what this situation is all about.

In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences said:

[W]aste tank residue is likely to be highly radioactive and

not taken up in the grout, so there is substantial

uncertainty. . . .

Another 2000 study by the National Academy of Sciences says:

[Using grout,] the ability of the site to reliably meet

long-term safety performance objectives remains uncertain.

I think there is much science that basically says we do not think grout can work. Obviously, we do not know what the Department of Energy is trying to do, because they want to leave an unspecified amount of waste in the ground and not be specific about that. So it is very difficult for us to see.

I would also like in my short time here, because I know each Member is limited in time this evening, to refute the letter that was submitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While we do not know what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was asked to comment on, what they ended up commenting on was not the underlying language in the DOD authorizing bill. They did not comment on the fact that the Graham language would significantly change the Nuclear Waste Power Act and classify high-level waste as something else.

What they did comment on was the fact that you could take the entire tanks out of the ground and it would be very expensive, which I do not know if people can imagine, because the Hanford site is miles and miles of acres--I think earlier we said something close to one-third the size of the State of Rhode Island. That is how big the Hanford reservation is--580 miles of land. These tanks that have stored the spent fuel are enormous.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is saying: We do not know if it is feasible to take out the tanks entirely. Well, no one ever said we expected to take out the entire tanks. What we said was we think the tanks have to be cleaned and the site has to be cleaned. And that is the removal process we should continue to do.

So I think while we would be wise to get a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that was specific about the exact proposal that is in this bill and get their response, the issue is they are not in charge of short-term waste disposal. They are in charge of this geological isolation solution we in Congress and others have been looking for, and basically asking questions about, and saying, Where are you going to take the vitrified waste and put it? They are not the regulatory entity over those short-term issues.

I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not fully addressed the question. I think perhaps we should send them a more direct question to which we can get a more specific answer.

We will hear a lot more about this issue when we return from the legislative recess. But I assure my colleagues, we are going to continue to talk about the fact that we in Congress cannot have this significant a change in a policy by simply sneaking language into a Senate Armed Services Committee bill that does not have jurisdiction over this issue and make a major policy change that is 30 years of law--30 years of established law--and 50 years of scientific evidence and override that in a short period of time without a full discussion and debate.

This underlying bill language needs to be stricken. We need to get about the nuclear waste cleanup that the science says we should do; that is, removing the high-level waste and not simply trying to do cleanup on the quick by calling it grout.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to clarify the intent of legislation I introduced yesterday, S. 2457. Certainly, I would like to ensure that the record reflects my intention in introducing this bill.

The provisions contained in S. 2457 mirror those contained in Section 3116 of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense authorization bill, which pertain to the reclassification of high-level radioactive waste. Let me be clear: I oppose these provisions. I hope the majority of my colleagues will oppose these provisions as well. I introduced this legislation for the purpose of demonstrating to my colleagues that

issues within the scope of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 do not belong within the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This was an issue of some debate on the floor yesterday, and I am pleased that the parliamentarian has in fact referred this legislation to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I am a member. I hope the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee will take note of this fact when debate resumes on Sec. 3116 of his bill after the Memorial Day Recess. A policy shift this significant requires substantial public debate within the committee of primary jurisdiction.

I would also like to respond to a few of the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, earlier today. First, he noted that the Armed Services Committee discussed the issue of waste incidental to reprocessing at two hearings earlier this year. Again, the Armed Services Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction for issues related to nuclear waste cleanup policy, as has now been affirmed by the Senate's parliamentarian. Second, a hearing at which the concept of ``incidental'' waste is discussed is not at all the same as a legislative hearing on a specific proposal. To my knowledge, the language to which I object in Sec. 3116 of the DoD authorization bill has never previously been introduced as stand-alone legislation. And if it had, it would not have been referred to the Armed Services Committee. Thus, we have had no legislative hearings on the Senator from South Carolina's proposal.

Lastly, the Senator from Colorado has misstated my position with regard to removal of Hanford's underground tanks, which contain 53 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste. As I stated clearly on the floor last evening, the cleanup plan at Hanford, as outlined in the TriParty agreement, does not include removal of these tanks from the ground. As I stated previously, I agree with the State of Washington's current thinking on this matter. Digging up these tanks would pose a number of unnecessary risks, and that is not a concept now on the table. I hope that the Senator from Colorado will take note of this fact.

I look forward resuming debate on these matters of such tremendous importance when the Senate returns from the Memorial Day Recess.

Lastly, Mr. President, I have an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 to strike Section 811(b) of the act, which alters disclosure requirements for subcontracting information provided to small businesses through the Procurement Technical Assistance Program of the Defense Logistics Agency.

This amendment will ensure that small businesses seeking federal subcontracting opportunities through PTAP would continue to have adequate point-of-contact information for procurements up to $1 million.

The Procurement Technical Assistance Program assists small businesses by providing training and information about federal business opportunities, both prime and subcontracts. Under the terms of this program, the DLA joins forces with State, local, and tribal governments for the purpose of delivering technical assistance services to businesses that are new to federal procurement.

Current law requires that experienced defense contractors with over $500,000 in contract awards disclose to assistance providers the contact information for their executives with authority to enter into subcontracts. These disclosures must be made only once a year. The cost of disclosures is practically non-existent. However, the disclosure requirement materially advances the purpose of the program by allowing small businesses easy access to potential subcontracts.

Nevertheless, Section 811(b) of the act seeks to exempt experienced defense contractors from these annual disclosures unless they receive over $1 million in government contracts. The need for this change is, at best, questionable. Providing a few names and phone numbers once a year is hardly a significant burden. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I am concerned that this change would needlessly obscure the procurement process for small business. I urge the Senate to retain the current PTAP disclosure requirements.

Mr. President, I say, while the Senator from Utah is here, how much I appreciate his wise words on so many subjects that are important to our country and to our culture and to American families. He has spoken eloquently about the importance of persevering in Iraq, the importance of traditional families as the bulwark of our culture and in the best interest of children, and the importance of making sure we keep the American military the dominant force in the world by making sure we transform in particular our Air Force by the implementation of the F-22 Raptor which, not coincidentally, is built in part in the State of Texas which is important both for our national security and in terms of the jobs it creates in my State.

I say to the Senator how much I appreciate him and his wisdom and his great leadership on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I thank the Senator for those kind comments.