Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safe Storage of Radiological Materials Act of 2005 to prevent sealed radioactive sources, which can be used to create ``dirty bombs,'' from getting into the hands of terrorists. This bill is similar to S. 1045, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act, which I introduced in 2003.

Since September 11, 2001, the Congress has faced the challenge of anticipating where the next attack on the United States will come from and in what form it will come. It is important to weigh where to invest precious security resources, knowing everything can't be protected. Many vulnerabilities deserve serious attention. Some can be addressed with relative ease.

Thousands of unwanted sealed radioactive sources are currently held by the private sector, research institutions, and medical laboratories where these sources are generally unprotected and accessible. An April 2003 report I requested from the Government Accountability Office, GAO, entitled ``Nuclear Proliferation: DOE Action Needed to Ensure Continued Recovery of Unwanted Sealed Radioactive Sources,'' stated that ``if these sealed sources fell into the hands of terrorists, they could be used as simple and crude but potentially dangerous radiological weapons, commonly called dirty bombs.'' Most experts agree that it would not require much scientific expertise or funding to cobble together a dirty bomb from radioactive material. In other words, the required materials are accessible and the assembly is relatively rudimentary.

The GAO report focused on greater-than-class-C, GTCC, sealed sources. GTCC radiological sources are the ``high end'' of the continuum of low- level radioactive waste. Class A, B, and C wastes can generally be disposed of at existing commercial disposal facilities. But wastes that exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's criteria for Class C, known as greater-than-class-C wastes, are potent enough that they cannot be disposed of at existing facilities. While GTCC wastes are not as dangerous as high-level radioactive waste and therefore are not considered the highest security priority, they are the most potent of low level waste and necessitate progressively more stringent disposal requirements.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments of 1985, P.L. 99- 240, required the Department of Energy, DOE, to provide a facility for disposing of all GTCC radioactive waste, including GTCC sealed sources that are no longer utilized by their owners. GAO found that little to no work had been done to designate a permanent disposal site. Although DOE has said that the facility will be up and running by 2007, it seems unlikely as they have only just begun the necessary environmental impact statement process.

In 1999, DOE created the Off-Site Source Recovery Project, OSRP, to recover unwanted GTCC sealed sources and temporarily house them at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory. According to GAO testimony before the Senate Energy Committee in September 2004, approximately 10,000 GTCC sealed sources from about 160 sites across the U.S. had been recovered to date. However, approximately 8,000 sources still remained in

insecure facilities at the time of the hearing.

The job is not done, but the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the division within DOE responsible for the U.S. Radiological Threat Reduction, USRTR, previously the OSRP, has made great strides. Since I first introduced S. 1045, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Act, in May 2003, the prioritization of off-site recovery of GTCC sources has heightened. DOE received a $10 million supplemental for the program in 2003 and the President's fiscal year 06 budget proposes funding the USRTR at $12.75 million, up 69 percent from the fiscal year 05 enacted level of $7.54 million.

Earlier this month, NNSA called to let me know it intended to remove 100 sources of cobalt-60, which is GTCC, from the University of Hawaii.

The University had been trying to get DOE, the owners of the material, to dispose of the sources for years. The radioactive material was used in an irradiator and loaned to the University back in the 1960s for agricultural research. I am grateful that NNSA stepped up its recovery of unneeded radiological sources and helped to relieve the burden of guarding potentially dangerous material from the University administration.

The progress made by NNSA, while appreciated and laudable, is nonetheless a first step. Without the designation of a permanent disposal facility for GTCC waste, DOE will run out of temporary storage space. The Department already encountered problems finding a place to store strontium-90, cesium-137, and plutonium-239, all GTCC sources that have unique storage requirements. A permanent disposal facility that can accommodate all GTCC waste must be identified.

The Safe Storage of Radiological Materials Act of 2005 would require DOE to report to Congress on the current situation and future plans for disposal alternatives for GTCC radioactive waste and the cost and schedule to complete an environmental impact statement and record of decision on a permanent disposal facility for GTCC radioactive wastes. My bill would also require DOE to provide Congress with a plan for the short-term recovery of GTCC radioactive waste until a permanent facility is available. This legislation parallels the recommendations of the April 2003 GAO report, and I believe enactment of this bill is critical to securing sealed sources of nuclear material.

Twenty years is too long to wait for an agency to do its job. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there have been a lot of complaints lately over John Bolton, the President's nominee to be United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. Bolton is an excellent choice for this position, as both his experience and leadership qualities prove. He graduated from Yale Law School, joined a prestigious firm, one of the country's great law firms, Covington & Burling. He worked there until 1981. He began his career in public service at the U.S. Agency for International Development, first as general counsel, then as assistant administrator for program and policy coordination. This was good training for him for his potential future role with the U.N.

From 1985 to 1989, he was an assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice. I got to know him at that time because I was a U.S. attorney in Alabama when he served in the Department of Justice in the prestigious office of legal counsel. From 1989 to 1993, he was again involved in international organizational issues when he served as Assistant Secretary of State for international organizational affairs. Mr. Bolton was confirmed by the Senate for both of those positions.

From 1993 to 1999, he was again in private practice, as a partner with the law firm of Lerner, Reed, Bolton, and McManus. In 2001, he became Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I believe he was confirmed once again in that position by the Senate.

This was excellent experience for him. He dealt with issues relating to world security. Some say Mr. Bolton does not believe in the United Nations, multilateralism, and diplomacy. That statement is false.

The President of the United States recently stated in a television interview that he asked Bolton if he supported the U.N. before he, the President, agreed to nominate him. Mr. Bolton answered that he did. Despite what others have been alleging, the facts show--and Mr. Bolton has proven time and again--that he believes in the U.N. That is why he has been such an effective advocate for honest diplomacy and an effective U.N.

For example, he was a pioneer in helping to construct the G-8 global partnership to help keep secure dangerous technologies and materials, and to help stop the spread of dangerous weapons throughout the world. This global initiative will provide $20 billion through 2012 to achieve these goals of making the world a safer place, by working with other nations.

Mr. Bolton was the President's point man in designing the Proliferation Security Initiative, the PSI. Over 60 nations are now working together, coordinated by John Bolton, to share intelligence, and are taking action to stop the transfer of dangerous weapons throughout the world. He has even done pro bono work for the U.N. in Africa, giving of his time for free to help those in need.

He also worked closely and effectively with the U.N. when he served as Assistant Secretary of State in the State Department for International Organizations, from 1989 to 1992.

He has been instrumental in galvanizing U.N. agencies such as the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to take concrete steps to actually make the world safer from weapons of mass destruction--not just to talk about it, but to do something about it. Isn't that effective multilateral leadership? I certainly think so.

He was the driving force in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540 to get countries to take meaningful steps to stop the spread of dangerous weapons.

He has clearly been instrumental in both diplomacy and multilateralism and has proven to be an advocate of a United Nations that fulfills its potential, its calling, to make the world safer, and to help people throughout the world develop to their fullest.

He will not, however, be an enabler of a dysfunctional U.N. John Bolton has supported reform within the U.N. to help make it a better organization. This reform effort should not be misconstrued as opposition to the U.N. but, rather, as constructive and effective criticism. When parents discipline their children, it is not because they don't support them or believe in them. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. Good parents set guidelines and high standards for their children to guide them in life and to make them more responsible adults. If you love your children, you want them to reach their highest and best potential. That is exactly what John Bolton has done with the

Mr. President, this letter of April 5, 2005, is signed by 13 giants of American diplomacy, including five Secretaries of State and two Secretaries of Defense in support of John Bolton. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for over three decades, John Bolton has had an effective working relationship with foreign governments, international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. He is a man who gets results. As Secretary Rice said:

The President has nominated John Bolton because he gets

things done.

That is exactly what we need for the U.N. ambassador. John Bolton is the man for the job.

Mr. President, I am proud to support him, and I do believe his nomination will be moving forward this week. I think this Senate should promptly move to confirm him in this important position.

60th Anniversary of V-E Day

Mr. President, I commend the leadership.

I rise to address the Senate on the subject of sexual predators. We have certainly had our fill of these people who prey on children in the State of Florida. The Nation has recently joined Florida in mourning the deaths of two young girls murdered by registered sex offenders. In March, an attacker walked in to--

Certainly.

About 5 minutes.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. I know this is a subject that he is quite concerned with. The Nation was gripped with the news of this sexual predator who walked into the unlocked home of a 9-year-old, Jessica Lunsford, in Homossassa, FL, took her from her bed--I want the Senator from Oklahoma to listen to the emotion in my voice. He walked into her unlocked home, took her from her bed, raped her, and then buried her alive. The man who is charged is a registered sex offender, previously convicted of molesting a minor, but law enforcement had lost track of him. In fact, he was living within 150 feet of Jessica Lunsford.

To add insult to injury, he was working at an elementary school.

Unfortunately, it did not stop there. About a month later, 13-year- old Sarah Lunde was abducted from her home in Rushkin, FL, and she was murdered. Her confessed killer is her mother's ex-boyfriend, who is also a convicted sex offender.

In our State alone, we have over 30,000 registered sex offenders, and there are more than 300,000 nationwide. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has provided data showing that 70 percent of all the men in prison for a sex crime were men whose victim was a child.

In 2003, the Justice Department published a report on recidivism rates of sex offenders, and it has produced some disturbing statistics. The Department of Justice tracked 9,691 male sex offenders released from 15 State prisons, including Florida. They tracked them for a 3- year period and found that 40 percent of the sex offenders who re- offended did so within the first year, and within 3 years of their release from prison, 5.3 percent of those sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime. Is this beginning to tell us a story? Half of the sex offenders tracked in this study included men who molested children, and within the first 3 years of their release from prison, 3.3 percent of these convicts were rearrested for another sex crime against a child.

In the wake of the two recent tragedies in Florida, of Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde, the State legislature passed a law that will provide tougher sentences for child sex offenders, and aid law enforcement in effectively monitoring those sex offenders. This law will require sex offenders, released back into our communities, to wear a bracelet that will have a global positioning system track them.

I applaud the initiative by our State, and I believe now there ought to be an appropriate Federal response to be supportive of the States and local governments that want to address this problem. The technology is there, but it is expensive. To be effective, tough laws on these sexual predators of children must be properly funded, and I believe it is worth properly funding them to protect our children.

Today I am introducing this bill, the Sexual Predator Effective Monitoring Act, which will provide $30 million in grants to States that establish programs under their State law to get tougher on child sex offenders released back into a community and to get tougher on them with more effective monitoring and tracking. This bill directs the Attorney General to award grants to those States to assist them in carrying out programs to outfit sexual offenders with an ankle bracelet that will track them using global positioning systems.

In the first year, I am suggesting that this bill offer $10 million in grants. In the second year, $20 million, and then we would have to come back and readdress the issue. The Attorney General then would be directed to issue a report so we could go on with future extension of the bill. There are no silver bullets to stop these sexual predators from preying on our children, but I believe tough laws, such as the new Florida statute, are going to go a long way in preventing these sexual offenders from reoffending.

Nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford's confessed rapist and murderer was living only within 150 feet of her home, but law enforcement officers did not know where he was because he failed to notify them of his changed address. Law enforcement also did not know he was working in a nearby elementary school, nor did the school know they had a registered sex offender on school property.

GPS monitoring systems, when properly used, will assist law enforcement in knowing where these child sex offenders are and preventing them from going into restricted areas like elementary schools. We owe it to our children to do all we can to make sure that we keep them safe. That is why I am introducing this bill today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this past Sunday, the 8th of May, marked the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe during World War II. I have come to the floor today to honor those who served in that war and to mention our colleagues who answered the call of duty then.

When I first came to the Senate, I think more than half of the Senate had served in World War II. There are few of us left who served during that war, and in the Senate only five: Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Warner, and myself.

That war was an enormous effort that involved our Nation's total manpower. Sixteen million Americans answered the call to serve, and more than 400,000 of them gave what Lincoln once called ``the last full measure of devotion.''

Here at home, Americans of all walks of life supported the war effort. Children collected rubber, tin, and steel. Families rationed food and gasoline. And women, in unprecedented numbers, took their place in industry and produced the tools that enabled us to win the war. They joined fields which had once been closed to them, and they never looked back.

When I went into the service, as most of my generation did, I was fortunate to do what I wanted to do, which was to fly. Sixty years ago, for those of us who served, every day was a milestone. Every day marked another step toward victory.

Today, we only recognize a handful of those days: Pearl Harbor Day, D-day, V-J Day, and V-E Day--which is what I speak of today.

There were so many who stepped forward when our country needed us, who sacrificed on the battlefield and here at home so we could win that war. It was a time defined by heroism, and it is hard to single out any one person who did heroic things. But I am here to remind the Senate that my friend, Senator Inouye, was a hero.

In military history there is a select group of men who have suffered grave injuries on the battlefield, continued their military careers, and gone on to further greatness. Horatio Nelson, Joshua Chamberlain, and John Bell Hood are all men who were tested on and off the battlefield, and their legacies endure.

Among these men, Senator Dan Inouye stands out because he overcame so much more just to become a soldier and waited so long to have his heroism officially recognized with the Congressional Medal of Honor.

It is hard to sum up my respect and admiration for my great colleague and friend from Hawaii. Our friendship has spanned many decades now, and we call each other truly brothers. We are brothers. I can think of no man I respect more.

Last month, Senator Reid came to the floor to honor Senator Inouye's service during World War II, also. Senator Reid said:

Dan Inouye is a step above all of us.

I agree with Senator Reid. As a World War II veteran, I am here to salute Dan Inouye. His courage and bravery and sense of duty are an inspiration to not only his Senate colleagues, but I feel to all Americans. In a time when men made the extraordinary seem ordinary, Dan Inouye stood out as a hero among men.

I would like to read part of the citation for action that resulted in Senator Inouye's Congressional Medal of Honor. Senator Inouye was recognized for valor in combat in the Italian campaign in a battle just 17 days before V-E Day. The citation says:

With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second

Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within

five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two

grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could

retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun

nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to

engage other hostile positions at close range until an

exploding grenade shattered his right arm.

Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

On the battlefield and in Congress, Dan Inouye has faithfully served our country, his state of Hawaii, and the men and women of the military.

It is men such as Dan Inouye who inspired the phrase the ``Greatest Generation.'' I hope we remember all of them today.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, yesterday we introduced a bill that would bring relief to some of the folks in my State of Montana. As you know, in the 1950s, nuclear testing was held in Nevada. Of course, from this testing, there was some radiation drift. The major source of this radiation comes from nuclear explosions from a Nevada test site, which is located about 65 miles north of Las Vegas.

In studies by the National Cancer Institute, and a report that was recently released by the National Academy of Sciences, we find that the State of Montana was left out of any compensation that was given to victims of downwind exposure to radiation. In fact, according to the National Cancer Institute, certain areas of Montana have been exposed to the highest dose, ranging from 12 rads to 16 rads. The National Cancer Institute's charts give you some idea of the effects of the nuclear test site in Nevada. Of course, up in our part of the country, we fall victim to southwesterly winds. If you notice, my State of Montana shows up with more darker red areas on the chart than any other region of the

United States, which means that we received some of the highest doses of radiation.

Montana is home to 15 of the 25 counties with the highest radiation dosage nationwide and the county receiving the highest dose in the country is Meagher County, MT.

Individuals who were affected from this nuclear testing are often called downwinders--because the wind carried the poisonous Iodine-131 north, when the gravity finally kicked in and it settled to the ground. People can be exposed to radiation from nuclear testing fallout through external radiation like a plume or a cloud passing over a region. They can also be exposed by radioactivity deposited on the ground and remaining there for long periods of time, or by the internal exposure to radioactivity that accumulates in the body from inhalation or ingestion of plants, meat or milk. Milk is the primary source of Iodine-131 and disproportionately affects milk drinkers. Who drinks milk? Children and babies who are the most vulnerable of our society.

This discussion leads us to the topic of thyroid cancer. The thyroid gland will absorb about 30 percent of radioactive Iodine-131 in the human body. Thyroid cancer is slow in development as it takes 10 to 40 years to manifest itself. This means that radiation exposure in the late 1950s might not manifest as cancer until the 1990s.

This chart compares the rates of thyroid cancer nationwide and in my state of Montana. Between years 1989 and 2003, the rate of thyroid cancer diagnosis nationwide increased by 38 percent. At the same time, the thyroid cancer rate in my State of Montana increased by a whopping 127 percent.

The 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and RECA Amendments of 2000 offer lump-sum payments of $50,000 to civilians who were living in States deemed as downwind from the nuclear testing in Nevada and who contracted a specific type of cancer. States where downwinders can currently receive compensation include Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. It is important to note that Montana was not included under this law. Yet a report just released by the National Academy of Sciences shows that Montana received the highest radiation dosage.

Accordingly, a most recent study on this issue shows the absorbed radiation dose to the thyroid of a person born in 1948 who resided for the entire period in Montana is 250 milligrays. This dosage is higher than most, if not all, regions presently eligible for compensation under RECA.

My bill, S. 977, would allow Montanans who were adversely affected by this nuclear testing to be counted among those folks currently eligible to receive $50,000 in compensation. Those eligible for $50,000 would also receive compensation in the form of free medical treatments for the diseases they have contracted from the exposure.

The fact is, Montanans were involuntarily subjected to increased risk of injury and disease in order to serve the national security interests of the United States, and they deserve our compassion and our support.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support S. 977, to expand RECA to victims in the State of Montana.

I yield the floor.