Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Hutchison and Landrieu to submit a resolution to convey the deepest sympathy of the Senate to the families of the young women who have been tragically murdered in Ciudad Juarez and throughout the State of Chihuahua, and urge the governments of Mexico and the United States to work together to address this issue. This is an issue that has not only affected the people of Mexico, but has long troubled the communities in my home State and across the entire Southwest region. A similar resolution, H. Res. 466, has been introduced by Representative Hilda Solis and enjoys the bipartisan support of 125 cosponsors.

In 1993, the bodies of women began appearing in the deserts outside the city of Juarez, Mexico, marking the beginning of a horrendous epidemic that has plagued the United States-Mexico border region for more then 10 years. Since then, more than 370 women have

been killed. Many of the young women were abducted in broad daylight in well-populated areas, held captive for several days and subjected to physical violence, humiliation, and sexual torture, before having their mutilated bodies discovered days, or sometimes years, later in deserted areas.

Unfortunately, these murders have continued into this year. Most recently, on May 28, 14-year old Luisa Rocio Chavez Chavez was found murdered in the city of Chihuahua after disappearing the previous morning on her way home from the store. She had been raped and strangled to death, and her body was found partially clothed. And before that, on April 26, a 33-year old factory worker, Teresa Torbellin, was found after being beaten to death and dragged through bushes and desert, eventually being dumped in a deserted area outside the city. Like these deaths, nearly all of the cases remain unsolved. In fact, many of the bodies of victims have yet to be positively identified. One can only imagine how much pain and suffering this has caused the families and friends of these young women. I want to make sure that these deaths are never forgotten, and that the governments on both sides of the border continue to give this issue the attention that it so rightly deserves.

National and international human rights groups, as well as Mexico's own special prosecutor, Maria Lopez Urbina, have reported that many times bodies were misidentified, evidence was contaminated or lost, key witnesses were not properly interviewed, and autopsies were inadequately performed. Some reports have even suspected local, state, and federal authorities of being involved or complicit in the women's murders.

It is my understanding that President Vicente Fox has taken steps to address this issue, by setting up the Commission to Prevent and Eradicate Violence Against Women, which is responsible for coordinating Federal and State efforts in preventing violence of women in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua, and appointing a special prosecutor for punishing those responsible for the murders in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua. Although I am pleased that President Fox has taken the initiative on these fronts, I continue to believe that there needs to be a more coordinated effort on the part of the Mexican and U.S. governments. That is why I stand here today to submit this vitally important resolution.

Specifically, this resolution would condemn the abductions and murders of young women in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, express the sincerest condolences and deepest sympathy of the Senate to the families of the young women, and urge a continued multilateral effort on the part of the governments of Mexico and the United States to address this issue.

To this end, it would urge the governments of Mexico and the United States to support efforts to further develop a DNA database that would allow families to positively identify the remains of the victims, and encourage the Secretary of State to continue to facilitate U.S. participation with such a DNA database.

It would also encourage the Secretary of State to urge the Mexican government to ensure fair and proper judicial proceedings for the individuals accused of these abductions and murders, and to impose appropriate punishment for those individuals found guilty of such crimes. Additionally, it would condemn the use of torture as a means of investigation.

Lastly, this resolution would condemn all senseless acts of violence against women across the world and express the solidarity of the people of the United States with the people of Mexico in the face of these tragic and senseless acts.

This problem cannot be ignored. We have the chance to help end the suffering of these innocent families, and I hope that the Senate will join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment, which I have cosponsored with the Senator from Oklahoma, to extend the Energy Savings Performance Contract program through the end of fiscal year 2005.

Our amendment is urgently needed to stem the damage being done to a very successful program that brings private sector expertise, and private sector financing, to efficiency projects that reduce the Federal Government's energy use, and energy costs.

Since the 1970's Federal Government agencies have been setting an example for the Nation on how to reduce energy waste and save money by improving their energy efficiency--spending $2.3 billion less for energy in FY2000 than in FY1985. One of the reasons for this success is the availability of Energy Savings Performance contracts, ESPCs. These contracts offer a way to make energy savings improvements at Federal facilities at no cost to the Government, by leveraging private capital. The Department of Defense has been a leader in the use of Energy Savings Performance contracts.

Under the ESPC authority enacted in 1992, private sector companies enter into contracts with Federal agencies to install energy savings equipment and make operational and maintenance changes to improve building efficiency. The company pays all of the up-front costs for making the energy efficiency improvements and guarantees the agency savings through the term of contract. The energy service company then recovers its investment, over time, by receiving a portion of the agency's energy cost savings.

Since 1992, this program has brought nearly $1.1 billion in private sector investments to Federal agencies, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in permanent savings to the taxpayers. The ESPC program has the support of a broad and diverse coalition of businesses, environmental groups and labor--including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. PIRG, and the Teamsters.

Unfortunately, the statutory authority for the ESPC program expired at the end of FY2003. As a result of the program lapse, over $300 million in energy efficiency projects have been halted nationwide. Pending contacts are in limbo along with over 3,000 new jobs associated with these projects. Although I and others have made several efforts to extend the program, these efforts have been unsuccessful, primarily because the Congressional Budget Office assigns a cost to the program, unlike the Office of Management and Budget which considers the program to be budget neutral.

While the debate over proper scoring of the program goes on, the loss of new business and experienced personnel has put this program into crisis. With each passing week, the benefits and potential of ESPCs are bleeding away. At a time of high energy costs, high deficits, and high unemployment, Congress should act as soon as possible to extend ESPC authority.

I thank the managers of the bill for accepting this short-term extension amendment. I also pledge to continue working with Senator Inhofe and other supporters of the ESPC program to enact a permanent extension of this valuable efficiency program.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary Abraham expressing administration support for the ESPC Program be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled ``Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2004'' with Senators Corzine, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Clinton, Johnson, Mikulski, Durbin, and Dayton. This legislation would phase-out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In the interim, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses.

When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to a July 2003 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.2 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.''

As Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, said of the report, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2- year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.''

These are people who are the most seriously disabled in our society and most in need of immediate health services. And yet, it is estimated that one-third of the 1.2 million currently federal policy puts the disabled on hold for 2 long years. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire.

In fact, various studies show that death rates among SSDI recipients are highest during the first two years of enrollment. For example, the Commonwealth Fund report, entitled Elimination of Medicare's Waiting Period for Seriously Disabled Adults: Impact on Coverage and Costs, 4 percent of these people die during the waiting period. Of the estimated 400,000 uninsured disabled Americans in the waiting period at any given time, 16,000 of them will die awaiting Medicare coverage. This is unacceptable.

Moreover, this does not factor in the serious health problems that others experience while waiting for Medicare coverage during the 2-year period. Although there is no direct data on the profile of SSDI beneficiaries in the 2-year waiting period, the Commonwealth Fund has undertaken a separate analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 1998 to get a good sense of the demographic characteristics, income, and health conditions of this group.

According to the analysis, ``. . . 45 percent of nonelderly Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities had incomes below the federal poverty line, and 77 percent had incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Fifth- nine percent reported that they were in fair or poor health; of this group, more than 90 percent reported that they suffered from one or more chronic illnesses, including arthritis (52%), hypertension (46%), mental disorder (36%), heart condition (35%), chronic lung disease (26%), cancer (20%), diabetes (19%), and stroke (12%).''

As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.''

Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be some corresponding decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both federal and state governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples.

The Commonwealth Fund estimates that, of the 1.26 million people in the waiting period, 40 percent are enrolled in Medicaid. As a result, the Commonwealth Fund estimates that federal Medicaid savings would offset nearly 30 percent of the increased costs in its study. Furthermore, states, which have been struggling financially with their Medicaid programs, would reap a windfall that would help them better manage their Medicaid programs.

Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on the Medicaid to often have a different set of providers, to then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers.

And finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk- pools

would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the report notes, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.''

I urge passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with the Senate the memory of an extraordinary woman. Toby Grossman, of Albuquerque, NM, lost her battle with cancer on May 25, 2004. Her husband, Leonard, and daughter, Jennifer, survive her.

Ms. Grossman was the senior staff attorney at the American Indian Law Center, Inc, the oldest existing Indian-controlled and operated legal and public policy organization in the country, having joined the center in 1971. She also served as the administrator of the Southwest Intertribal Court of Appeals, a voluntary court of appeals available to tribes in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and west Texas.

Ms. Grossman was a graduate of the University of Florida and the University of New Mexico School of Law, and

a member of the New Mexico Bar. A lecturer at the UNM School of Law, she regularly taught courses on the Indian Child Welfare Act and tribal government and she co-taught a course on Tribal-State relations. Ms. Grossman was a superb teacher. In class, she was serious, probing and enthusiastic. She set high standards for herself and expected the same from her students. Yet she was also friendly and caring in her relations with students, many of whom she remained close with long after they graduated.

She specialized in child welfare issues including child abuse and neglect, drafting of tribal codes, as well as assisting several tribes in negotiating Tribal-State agreements on the Indian Child Welfare Act and trained social workers and judges on child welfare law. She also led the American Indian Law Center team that developed the first Model Children's Code for tribes, as well as Model Codes for Child Welfare, Adoption, and Prevention of Elder Abuse. In these and other areas, local, State and tribal governments, as well as attorneys, frequently sought her advice and services.

Ms. Grossman's private life was no less exemplary than her public work. She was a good friend and was devoted to her synagogue. Despite the long hours she devoted to her professional and civic activities, she always found time to be a loving wife, mother, and friend.

Toby Grossman was a remarkable person, who significantly influenced the law, her many students, the New Mexico legal community, and all of Indian country. Her work has improved the lives of numerous Indian children, most of whom she never had a chance to meet. She leaves behind an indelible mark on this world.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce a bill that would give the Congress a modest capability to assess the impacts of science and technology on the formulation of public policy.

All of us in the Senate are all too aware how science and technology affects almost every aspect of policy we debate.

For instance, advances in science and technology are critical to our homeland defense oversight duties. There are many legislative proposals to deploy biological detection sensors in our cities. Yet, Congress does not get timely, in-depth advice on the policy implications on such issues as how many would be needed in a large city, or how will the data be integrated into a communications network, and would such a large volume of data be accurately analyzed and disseminated in a timely fashion. In another area of homeland defense, we are not confident on what the policy implications are for biometrics applied to border control. What are the costs for applying biometrics to the millions of visas we issue every year? How might these biometrics, which record our physiological features into a single database, invade our notions of privacy?

In the jurisdiction of my committee, Energy and Natural Resources, we would like to know how technology could mitigate the threat of wildfires, especially on urban regions adjacent to our national forests. We know that there are improvements in building materials and construction techniques that can reduce the danger of homes

suddenly catching fire and spreading to adjacent homes. However, the effect of such technology improvements on policy matters involving building codes, fire and disaster insurance, and coordination of communications between federal and local emergency response are unknown, yet critical to our law making duties.

There are other areas where technology affects law making and oversight duties. The Congress has supported efforts to integrate technology into one of the most crucial elements of democracy--voting. Nevertheless, questions remain on the accountability of each vote, and the cyber-security of electronic voting systems. These voting technology issues directly affect the public confidence in any law we may write to bring electronic voting into the mainstream.

I could go on and on, but these examples lead me to the bill I am introducing today.

Congress abolished the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1995. While I disagreed with this decision, the bill I am proposing today seeks to establish a smaller, less costly capability in the General Accounting Office (GAO).

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) and GAO have many technology-competent personnel, but neither assesses the effects of technology on policy-making. The CRS or GAO may study or catalog various technologies, they may assess the merits of one technology versus another, or even its economic benefits and costs, but they do not analyze how the technology can affect policy.

Some may assert the National Academy of Sciences performs such a function. The National Academies independently, through outside advisory committees, evaluates the technological merits of programs that involve technology, usually funded by the executive branch, and not directly by the Congress. The majority of the technology evaluations by the National Academies are not technology assessments, they do not consider what consequences a technology will have on the policies that the Congress considers. Because the Academy maintains a strong independence, the timing of their reports are not, and should not be, linked to the Congressional calendar.

I believe it is possible have an existing legislative branch agency such as the GAO give to neutral, objective technology assessments to the Congress in a timely fashion. I am of the opinion that the GAO can undertake this function without creating a large bureaucracy.

Let me first outline the history of the legislation I am proposing.

Three years ago, with the help of Senator Bennett, who then chaired the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, I was able to initiate a pilot program at the GAO to perform technology assessments of interest to the Congress. It was Senator Bennett who first suggested placing this pilot at the GAO, and when contacted, the GAO stepped forward to accept that challenge.

Since that time, the three-year pilot program at the GAO has conducted, or has underway, technology assessments on a wide range of topics, from biometrics for border control, cyber-security, cargo container security, and technology to mitigate the impact of wildfires on urban boundaries. All of these assessments were initiated by bipartisan and bicameral letters to the GAO.

I believe this pilot program to be a success. The first report on biometrics for border control has received good evaluations from industry and congressional staff. The GAO still testifies on the results from the report. The second report on cyber-security has just been released, experts across government and the private sector believe it is of high quality. A technology assessment on cargo container security is underway. A wildfire technology assessment has just been initiated.

In addition, this pilot program has undergone several reviews.

The first review occurred in October of 2002, when the first technology assessment on biometrics ended. A group of distinguished scientists, familiar with the technology assessment process, reviewed the GAO's organizational capability to conduct future technology assessments. While they were impressed with the quality of the GAO's effort, they made positive suggestions on how the GAO could improve the policy analysis phase of the technology assessment, as this crucial feature was new to the GAO. The group of experts reviewed the organizational mix of the GAO, and its ability to absorb the technology assessment process within their traditional audit and quality control structure. These experts found that the GAO's Center for Technology and Engineering, which performed the first biometrics assessment, was a capable organization, as it was accustomed to undertaking a wide range of technology-oriented problems. Finally, the experts commented on how the GAO could utilize nongovernmental entities to perform the data collection, thus reducing the potential to create a new bureaucracy. For the first biometrics report, the experts supported the GAO working with the National Research Council to conduct stakeholder workshops to gather a wide range of data, while the report writing would be by a legislative branch entity--the GAO.

The second review was a workshop held in July of 2003, at the National Academy of Sciences. A wide array of nongovernmental attendees evaluated the pilot program at the GAO in the context of other organization models for technology assessment, from recreating the old OTA to simply using the National Academies. This was the first time many nongovernmental persons were exposed to the GAO pilot and many were surprised that the GAO was willing to undertake such a program, and that its staff quickly adapted to the technology assessment process.

The third review occurred in December of 2003 at the request of the Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. This review was conducted by the GAO. The subcommittee asked what would be required to conduct this pilot on a sustained basis. The GAO concluded that four full time staff would be required at a cost of $420,000, plus $125,000 for additional expenses to work with outside groups such as the National Research Council to collect data. This request has appeared as part of GAO's Fiscal Year 2005 budget submission. The GAO also requested additional legislative authorities so that the assessments could be part of their annual budget process.

This bill is in response to the December 2003 findings of GAO; it has been fully coordinated with the GAO and their findings. This bill also reflects the comments from the July 2003 National Academies workshop and the first review of the GAO by the expert panel in October of 2002.

Let me now outline several feature of this bill, and then I will comment on what this bill does not have.

First, the bill proposes to modify the GAO's organic act to give it the statutory authority to perform technology assessments as part of its advice to the Congress. In doing so, the GAO is directed make such technology assessments in a timely and objective fashion. One of the major issues with the OTA was that many of its reports were so in-depth that they missed the legislative cycle to make a substantive impact on a bill under consideration by the Congress. In addition to the longer, more in-depth reports, I expect that the GAO will give quick turn- around phone consultations on singular technology assessment questions by staff.

Second, it directs the Comptroller General to ensure that the GAO has the human resources expertise in technology and policy to ensure a high quality product.

Third, it directs the Comptroller General, to the maximum extent practicable, to be apprised of other ongoing efforts that may be providing information to the Congress.

Fourth, it directs the Comptroller to peer review all the technology assessment reports.

Fifth, it directs the Comptroller General to establish an advisory board in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences. This board shall provide external advice on the assessment topics, how they are selected, and methods to their improve timeliness and quality. Many times advisory boards are an extra overhead burden, but in this case, where the GAO is acting as a bridge between the outside technical community and the Congress, I feel it is important that some form of external peer review of the technology assessment process be present.

Sixth, it gives the GAO the necessary authority to enter into contracts with outside groups to obtain the information and technical feedback that does not reside within the GAO, thus avoiding the creation of a bureaucracy within the GAO.

Finally, it requires the GAO to submit an annual report to the Congress on its technology assessment activities from the prior year.

Let me explain what this authorization does not do.

First, it does not create a Technology Assessment Board consisting of members of Congress to help select topics. There was much concern that the OTA became almost beholden to its Technology Assessment Board to the dismay of other members of Congress. I have left the topic selection process to the GAO within their existing authorities, similar to the way they currently schedule and produce reports for members and committees. This process has been refined and tested over many years, and it is flexible enough to accommodate sudden high priority demands. I see no reason why scheduling technology assessments cannot be part of this bigger scheduling process, so that its demands are reflected in the overall scheduling priorities of the GAO.

Second, this legislation does not create a large legislative branch entity. The OTA had upwards of 200 people and a $30 million budget before it was disbanded in 1995. This authorization relies on a core internal group at the GAO that relies on outside entities to provide information where needed and to be a technical sounding board through workshops on a particular technology and its various policy implications.

This legislation strikes an important balance. It establishes some internal legislative branch capability to analyze how technology affects our policymaking duties. It fills a void left when the OTA was abolished by relying on a core team at the GAO using their existing authorities for topic selection. Finally, it provides an important bridge to the many nongovernmental entities and societies that give advice to the executive branch and Congress, while ensuring legislative branch objectivity and quality.

I hope my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation. I hope that it receives a hearing in the Governmental Affairs Committee, so that all sides of the fact finding process can be brought to bear on this bill's strengths and weaknesses, and in so doing, be improved and reported to the floor of the Senate for its full consideration and passage.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce a bill that would give the Congress a modest capability to assess the impacts of science and technology on the formulation of public policy.

All of us in the Senate are all too aware how science and technology affects almost every aspect of policy we debate.

For instance, advances in science and technology are critical to our homeland defense oversight duties. There are many legislative proposals to deploy biological detection sensors in our cities. Yet, Congress does not get timely, in-depth advice on the policy implications on such issues as how many would be needed in a large city, or how will the data be integrated into a communications network, and would such a large volume of data be accurately analyzed and disseminated in a timely fashion. In another area of homeland defense, we are not confident on what the policy implications are for biometrics applied to border control. What are the costs for applying biometrics to the millions of visas we issue every year? How might these biometrics, which record our physiological features into a single database, invade our notions of privacy?

In the jurisdiction of my committee, Energy and Natural Resources, we would like to know how technology could mitigate the threat of wildfires, especially on urban regions adjacent to our national forests. We know that there are improvements in building materials and construction techniques that can reduce the danger of homes

suddenly catching fire and spreading to adjacent homes. However, the effect of such technology improvements on policy matters involving building codes, fire and disaster insurance, and coordination of communications between federal and local emergency response are unknown, yet critical to our law making duties.

There are other areas where technology affects law making and oversight duties. The Congress has supported efforts to integrate technology into one of the most crucial elements of democracy--voting. Nevertheless, questions remain on the accountability of each vote, and the cyber-security of electronic voting systems. These voting technology issues directly affect the public confidence in any law we may write to bring electronic voting into the mainstream.

I could go on and on, but these examples lead me to the bill I am introducing today.

Congress abolished the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1995. While I disagreed with this decision, the bill I am proposing today seeks to establish a smaller, less costly capability in the General Accounting Office (GAO).

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) and GAO have many technology-competent personnel, but neither assesses the effects of technology on policy-making. The CRS or GAO may study or catalog various technologies, they may assess the merits of one technology versus another, or even its economic benefits and costs, but they do not analyze how the technology can affect policy.

Some may assert the National Academy of Sciences performs such a function. The National Academies independently, through outside advisory committees, evaluates the technological merits of programs that involve technology, usually funded by the executive branch, and not directly by the Congress. The majority of the technology evaluations by the National Academies are not technology assessments, they do not consider what consequences a technology will have on the policies that the Congress considers. Because the Academy maintains a strong independence, the timing of their reports are not, and should not be, linked to the Congressional calendar.

I believe it is possible have an existing legislative branch agency such as the GAO give to neutral, objective technology assessments to the Congress in a timely fashion. I am of the opinion that the GAO can undertake this function without creating a large bureaucracy.

Let me first outline the history of the legislation I am proposing.

Three years ago, with the help of Senator Bennett, who then chaired the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, I was able to initiate a pilot program at the GAO to perform technology assessments of interest to the Congress. It was Senator Bennett who first suggested placing this pilot at the GAO, and when contacted, the GAO stepped forward to accept that challenge.

Since that time, the three-year pilot program at the GAO has conducted, or has underway, technology assessments on a wide range of topics, from biometrics for border control, cyber-security, cargo container security, and technology to mitigate the impact of wildfires on urban boundaries. All of these assessments were initiated by bipartisan and bicameral letters to the GAO.

I believe this pilot program to be a success. The first report on biometrics for border control has received good evaluations from industry and congressional staff. The GAO still testifies on the results from the report. The second report on cyber-security has just been released, experts across government and the private sector believe it is of high quality. A technology assessment on cargo container security is underway. A wildfire technology assessment has just been initiated.

In addition, this pilot program has undergone several reviews.

The first review occurred in October of 2002, when the first technology assessment on biometrics ended. A group of distinguished scientists, familiar with the technology assessment process, reviewed the GAO's organizational capability to conduct future technology assessments. While they were impressed with the quality of the GAO's effort, they made positive suggestions on how the GAO could improve the policy analysis phase of the technology assessment, as this crucial feature was new to the GAO. The group of experts reviewed the organizational mix of the GAO, and its ability to absorb the technology assessment process within their traditional audit and quality control structure. These experts found that the GAO's Center for Technology and Engineering, which performed the first biometrics assessment, was a capable organization, as it was accustomed to undertaking a wide range of technology-oriented problems. Finally, the experts commented on how the GAO could utilize nongovernmental entities to perform the data collection, thus reducing the potential to create a new bureaucracy. For the first biometrics report, the experts supported the GAO working with the National Research Council to conduct stakeholder workshops to gather a wide range of data, while the report writing would be by a legislative branch entity--the GAO.

The second review was a workshop held in July of 2003, at the National Academy of Sciences. A wide array of nongovernmental attendees evaluated the pilot program at the GAO in the context of other organization models for technology assessment, from recreating the old OTA to simply using the National Academies. This was the first time many nongovernmental persons were exposed to the GAO pilot and many were surprised that the GAO was willing to undertake such a program, and that its staff quickly adapted to the technology assessment process.

The third review occurred in December of 2003 at the request of the Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. This review was conducted by the GAO. The subcommittee asked what would be required to conduct this pilot on a sustained basis. The GAO concluded that four full time staff would be required at a cost of $420,000, plus $125,000 for additional expenses to work with outside groups such as the National Research Council to collect data. This request has appeared as part of GAO's Fiscal Year 2005 budget submission. The GAO also requested additional legislative authorities so that the assessments could be part of their annual budget process.

This bill is in response to the December 2003 findings of GAO; it has been fully coordinated with the GAO and their findings. This bill also reflects the comments from the July 2003 National Academies workshop and the first review of the GAO by the expert panel in October of 2002.

Let me now outline several feature of this bill, and then I will comment on what this bill does not have.

First, the bill proposes to modify the GAO's organic act to give it the statutory authority to perform technology assessments as part of its advice to the Congress. In doing so, the GAO is directed make such technology assessments in a timely and objective fashion. One of the major issues with the OTA was that many of its reports were so in-depth that they missed the legislative cycle to make a substantive impact on a bill under consideration by the Congress. In addition to the longer, more in-depth reports, I expect that the GAO will give quick turn- around phone consultations on singular technology assessment questions by staff.

Second, it directs the Comptroller General to ensure that the GAO has the human resources expertise in technology and policy to ensure a high quality product.

Third, it directs the Comptroller General, to the maximum extent practicable, to be apprised of other ongoing efforts that may be providing information to the Congress.

Fourth, it directs the Comptroller to peer review all the technology assessment reports.

Fifth, it directs the Comptroller General to establish an advisory board in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences. This board shall provide external advice on the assessment topics, how they are selected, and methods to their improve timeliness and quality. Many times advisory boards are an extra overhead burden, but in this case, where the GAO is acting as a bridge between the outside technical community and the Congress, I feel it is important that some form of external peer review of the technology assessment process be present.

Sixth, it gives the GAO the necessary authority to enter into contracts with outside groups to obtain the information and technical feedback that does not reside within the GAO, thus avoiding the creation of a bureaucracy within the GAO.

Finally, it requires the GAO to submit an annual report to the Congress on its technology assessment activities from the prior year.

Let me explain what this authorization does not do.

First, it does not create a Technology Assessment Board consisting of members of Congress to help select topics. There was much concern that the OTA became almost beholden to its Technology Assessment Board to the dismay of other members of Congress. I have left the topic selection process to the GAO within their existing authorities, similar to the way they currently schedule and produce reports for members and committees. This process has been refined and tested over many years, and it is flexible enough to accommodate sudden high priority demands. I see no reason why scheduling technology assessments cannot be part of this bigger scheduling process, so that its demands are reflected in the overall scheduling priorities of the GAO.

Second, this legislation does not create a large legislative branch entity. The OTA had upwards of 200 people and a $30 million budget before it was disbanded in 1995. This authorization relies on a core internal group at the GAO that relies on outside entities to provide information where needed and to be a technical sounding board through workshops on a particular technology and its various policy implications.

This legislation strikes an important balance. It establishes some internal legislative branch capability to analyze how technology affects our policymaking duties. It fills a void left when the OTA was abolished by relying on a core team at the GAO using their existing authorities for topic selection. Finally, it provides an important bridge to the many nongovernmental entities and societies that give advice to the executive branch and Congress, while ensuring legislative branch objectivity and quality.

I hope my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation. I hope that it receives a hearing in the Governmental Affairs Committee, so that all sides of the fact finding process can be brought to bear on this bill's strengths and weaknesses, and in so doing, be improved and reported to the floor of the Senate for its full consideration and passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment that would require the Department of Defense to provide to the appropriate committees of the Congress--that is the Armed Services Committee Senator Warner chairs here in the Senate, the Armed Services Committee in the House, and the two Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate--a report related to those prisoners they are detaining and that they have had in detention for at least 30 days.

Some could characterize this as the anti-ghost-prisoner amendment. This is an effort to be sure Congress has the basic information it needs to exercise oversight of the Pentagon, of the Department of Defense, with regard to detainees anywhere in the world. The effect of the amendment would be to require that the report advise the committees on who these people are, what is their nationality, where are they being detained--in which facility, that is--and whether the Department of Defense intends to keep them, has justification for intending to keep them in detention, intends to repatriate them to their home country, or intends to charge them with some crime and prosecute them. Those are the obvious choices. If there are others my colleagues could suggest, I would be glad to add those to the language of the amendment.

The idea is the committees of the Congress with jurisdiction in this area should have some knowledge about the extent of the detentions we are engaged in, our Department of Defense is engaged in. The amendment as I have drafted it calls for this report to be made every 6 months so the Congress could exercise a meaningful oversight.

You could say, What has prompted this kind of amendment? There are a lot of accounts in recent days in the news that have prompted it. I think many people have probably noticed some of these news accounts. There was an article in the Financial Times on Saturday. ``Guantanamo Prisoners Wrongly Held'' is the headline. Then the body of the article says:

The U.S. released more than two dozen prisoners from

Guantanamo Bay earlier this year after Pentagon lawyers

determined that some had been detained wrongly for as long as

2 years.

It goes on in another paragraph of the same article:

But the Financial Times has learned that in January the

Pentagon sent a team of lawyers to Guantanamo to examine

whether there was sufficient evidence to justify some of the

detentions.

Then it goes on and says:

The Pentagon team's recommendation that in several cases

there was insufficient evidence to justify their imprisonment

alarmed the White House because of the need to persuade the

Supreme Court of the legality of the detentions.

That is one article which obviously raised concerns. Frankly, what raised concerns, at least for me, was the various articles recounting the statements by the Secretary of Defense to the effect that he had directed the appropriate information as to at least one prisoner and perhaps several be withheld from the Red Cross. It is required to be given to the Red Cross under the Geneva Conventions. He had ordered that it not be given to the Red Cross at the request of the head of the CIA. This is the so-called ghost prisoner phenomenon we have been reading about in recent days.

About 10 months ago I offered an amendment here on the Senate floor to try to require a report from the Pentagon, and from the Department of Defense, on that category of prisoners whom the administration has designated as enemy combatants.

Unfortunately, that amendment failed. Many of my colleagues voted against it.

Senator Stevens made a representation on the Senate floor that the Intelligence Committee has access to information about enemy combatants, including the names of who is being detained. It says the Red Cross is fully engaged in this information.

I tried, frankly, over a period of several weeks to find out if that was the case. My first information was the Senate Intelligence Committee did not have that information. I am now informed they do have the information but that it is classified in such a way that only the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee have access to it.

I believe as Members of Congress who have responsibility of oversight of the executive branch it is appropriate that at least the appropriate committees get the same basic information about these detainees that we are required under the Geneva Conventions to give to the Red Cross. I don't know why information should be provided to the Red Cross that the Congress itself shouldn't be entitled to.

I hope my colleagues will agree both that we should provide the information to the Red Cross as the Geneva Conventions commit us to provide since we are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and second, that Congress should be entitled to the same basic information.

I have asked in my amendment which I have sent to the desk for some additional information--information that the Red Cross is not entitled to under the Geneva Conventions.

The main thing I have asked for, frankly, with regard to the detainees is the Secretary of Defense advise the appropriate committees of the Congress as to what the intention of our Government is with regard to these individuals. Do we intend to maintain them in detention? Do we have justification to do so? Do we intend to repatriate them to another country? Or do we intend to charge them with a crime?

It seems to me that is an appropriate request for us to be making.

I have been embarrassed--as I believe many in the Congress have been--at the revelations about treatment of prisoners. I have also been surprised at the revelations about the extent of the detentions we are engaged in, particularly in Iraq but also in Afghanistan, and the number of people we seem to have in custody.

I think it is entirely appropriate that the Congress try to exercise some type of oversight on an ongoing basis to ensure that basic human rights are respected, and that the standards we have committed to in the Geneva Conventions are, in fact, being adhered to.

I think this is a very straightforward request. It does nothing but require a report every 6 months.

I know my colleague and former chairman, Senator Warner, has had some concerns about the particular aspects of this amendment and has come up with an alternative which he would like to offer and put before the Senate as well as a second-degree amendment.

I would be happy to engage in some serious discussion about the particular provisions of my amendment as well as the second-degree amendment Senator Warner has indicated he desires to offer. But, as I say, I think the basic bottom-line position I am taking is there is no reason Congress should be denied information which we are otherwise providing to the Red Cross.

There is certainly no problem if the Department of Defense believes this information needs to be held confidentially in classified form. My amendment provides for that. It is their determination. If they think this has to be classified, they can classify it. They can put portions of this report in a classified annex. But to say Congress should not get the information at all I think is not an appropriate response.

For that reason, I hope my amendment will be agreed to.

I yield the floor.

Would my colleague yield for a question?

I appreciate the cooperative approach my colleague has taken. I greatly respect his judgment on many of these matters.

First, on the issue of whether revealing the name and identity of these people is a major security threat, we have obligated ourselves under the Geneva Convention to do exactly that with regard to information we are going to turn over to the Red Cross for every prisoner of war we take into custody.

The specific language in part V of the Geneva Conventions talks with respect to each prisoner of war:

. . . the information shall include, in so far as available

to the Information Bureau, in respect of each prisoner of

war, his surname, first names, rank, army, regimental,

personal or serial number, place and full date of birth,

indication of the Power on which he depends, first name of

the father and maiden name of the mother, name and address of

the person to be informed and the address to which

correspondence for the prisoner may be sent.

That is what the Geneva Conventions requires.

Could we explore the possibility of just saying that the appropriate committees of the Congress should be entitled to the same information that we have committed ourselves to provide to the Red Cross with regard to all detainees?

Mr. President, in answer to the question, that is exactly right. It is not my suggestion that the Red Cross reports on conditions in prisons or anything else be provided to us. All I am saying is if our Department of Defense turns over information to the Red Cross--as it is required to do under the Geneva Conventions--we ought to have access to that.

Even in classified form, Congress ought to be able to know as much as the Red Cross knows about who we are detaining in our facilities.

The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct in noting our strong support for the Department's S&T programs. During the 106th Congress, I introduced an amendment--SA 199--cosponsored by Senators Santorum, Kennedy, and Lieberman, to S. Con. Res. 20, the Senate's Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002, that was designed to ensure the long-term national security of the United States through a robust Department of Defense S&T program. Additionally, during the 105th Congress, I introduced an amendment--SA 2999--cosponsored by Senators Santorum and Lieberman, to S. 2057, the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act, articulating a sense of the Senate on the ideal level of funding for our Department of Defense's S&T program.

We also agree that by funding these vital programs at over 3 percent of the total Defense Department budget, we will be demonstrating a commitment and leadership in an area critical to U.S. national security. Past research carried out with S&T program funding has provided the foundation for protecting U.S. military personnel and ensuring U.S. technological superiority on the battlefield. Hand-held translators, unmanned systems, thermobaric bombs, and laser-guided and global positioning systems are just a few examples of the many technologies resulting from S&T investments that are used today to remove personnel from harm's way, enhance

battlespace awareness, and address new threats.

Furthermore, American universities offer the Department of Defense the laboratories and knowledge base necessary to successfully complete this transformation objective. The Department of Defense has historically played a major federal role in funding basic research and has been a significant sponsor of engineering research and technology development conducted in American universities.

I thank Senator Santorum for his observations on the importance of robust Department of Defense S&T program funding, and I urge that we continue to advocate funding the S&T program at a level of at least at 3 percent of the total Department of Defense appropriation.

Madam President, I rise today to offer my support for the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Bunning, to reform the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act.

The purpose of this act was straightforward when enacted in 2000: to compensate sick workers at Department of Energy facilities, and industrial sites, who performed work involving radioactive and hazardous materials associated with nuclear weapons. More importantly, it was to compensate them quickly, and with a minimal amount of bureaucracy, given that many of these workers are dying.

Unfortunately, 4 years later that does not appear to be the case for subtitle D of this act, as administered by the Department of Energy, which handles claims that are to go forward to State compensation boards.

Let me cite some statistics that indicate to me that there appears to be a structural problem with subtitle D. As of June 4, 2004, the Department of Energy has 24,354 cases pending to determine whether working at a DOE facility was the cause of their illness. Yet as of June 4, 2004, only four of the cases have received a favorable determination from State Worker Compensation Boards. The amount paid out for these four cases is approximately $139,000.

Over the past 4 years, the administration of this program has cost the taxpayers $95 million.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has held two hearings on this program to explore solutions to the problems we face under subtitle D. The first hearing was on November 23, 2003. It had seven witnesses, including Senator Grassley and Under Secretary Card from the Department of Energy. The other five witnesses were experts in the field of injured worker compensation; all had worked on this program since its inception. At that hearing, the expert witnesses confirmed there were major problems processing the claims under subtitle D. Dr. David Michaels, the former DOE official who developed this program, told the committee that subtitle D, as administered by the DOE, was a failure.

The second hearing on March 30, 2004, included Senator Grassley, DOE Under Secretary Card and officials from the GAO, Department of Labor and NIOSH. At this hearing, the DOE proposed several legislative changes to the processing of the claims, such as reducing the physician panels from 3 to 1 and increasing the pay for qualified physicians. In my opinion, these administration proposals fell short, yet these proposals are in the current Department of Defense bill the Senate is debating.

Because of these two hearings, Senator Bunning and I are now proposing this amendment, which we believe will help fix some of the problems found under subtitle D. The amendment has undergone many hours of bipartisan staff discussion over several months.

The most significant element of the amendment is the shift of subtitle D from the DOE to the Department of Labor, which specializes in handling such claims. If the claim is found to have been caused by employment at a DOE site, the Department of Labor then pays the sick worker his lost wages at the time of his employment plus medical expenses, according to their State compensation formula at the time of employment.

This payment scheme is a positive step forward. It eliminates an adversarial adjudication in front of a State compensation board, which in some cases, even if positively adjudicated, will have no willing payer as the contractor has long since vanished. Sick workers who performed inherently unique governmental functions associated with nuclear weapons should not be subjected to this adversarial adjudication process.

I believe the remedy that Professor John Burton of Rutgers University proposed is the better approach. Professor Burton is the Nation's leading expert on workers compensation, and he has given advice on this legislation since it was first enacted. At the March 30 hearing, Professor Burton recommended a single formula modified according to the degree of disability. In this way, the Department of Labor is not tied to each State's compensation formula as in this amendment.

Nevertheless, I think this amendment reflects a bipartisan effort, and in doing so, compromises had to be struck by all parties.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter in support of the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Administration for fixing the program.

Let me note that even though this amendment proposes to move subtitle D from the DOE to the Department of Labor, the DOE will continue to play a vital role in locating and interpreting the workers' employment and medical records. This move will let the DOE concentrate solely on performing this important function without trying to administer a large claims processing program.

I conclude by thanking those who have contributed to this effort. I thank Ms. Kate Kimpan from Senator Bunning's Office, who has provided never-ending technical support on a complicated subject. I also thank Mr. Richard Miller of the Government Accountability Project, Mr. Jay Powers of the AFL-CIO, and others of the building trade unions. Richard Miller and Jay Powers have worked to help sick atomic workers since this program was initiated, and have continued to make Congress aware of its failings 4 years later; we owe both these gentlemen a debt of gratitude.

These workers and their families have suffered the pain of serious illnesses for so long--we should not make them suffer the indignity of trying to navigate Government red tape a moment longer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I rise to thank Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for their acceptance of a very important amendment last evening that was offered by me along with Senators Smith, Corzine, Kennedy, and Akaka to clarify the important role that the Department of Defense Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network plays in increasing training and competency in understanding vaccine associated adverse events, their diagnosis, treatment and medical exemption management.

My amendment, No. 3392, expands upon the language that originally created the Vaccine Healthcare Centers, or VHCs, in 2001, to better reflect their current function and mission, and recognize the growing importance the Network will play in the future with the recent passage of the BioShield Act.

As one example, the original language referenced only the anthrax vaccine program but the VHCs have played a fundamental role in developing and

testing the DoD Smallpox Vaccine Program with clinical and research follow-up. These functions should be reflected in the authorization of the VHCs and the Bingaman-Smith-Corzine-Kennedy-Akaka amendment does that.

Mr. President, Congress created the Vaccine Healthcare Centers, VHC, Network as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, but focused the VHCs on establishing ``a system for monitoring adverse events of members of the armed forces to the anthrax vaccine.''

The Vaccine Healthcare Center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was created in 2001 to respond to that congressional requirement. Subsequently, with the creation of three additional regional centers at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia, Womack Army Medical Center in North Carolina, and Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, the VHC Network today provides educational and clinical support services that are available to 2.4 million Active Duty and Reserve servicemembers and over 6 million family members for all immunizations--not just the anthrax vaccine.

The importance of the VHCs to both servicemembers and the military cannot be understated. The VHCs, particularly the one at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, has established itself as an unbiased, objective source of clinical vaccine-related information to servicemembers, providers, the military and Congress, which is rather a remarkable accomplishment.

In fact, there are strong feelings with respect to the anthrax and smallpox vaccines, and it is no secret that I have grave concerns with the military's policies with respect to the mandatory nature of those vaccines at this time. However, regardless of how you feel about the policy, few would disagree that the VHCs have provided a strong scientific, and unbiased clinical perspective that all sides respect and appreciate.

As the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, or AFEB, found in a report it published on April 14,2004, ``The VHC Network has become an integral component of the referral and consultation services available on vaccine adverse event issues for the DoD and can play an important role in the study and evaluation of cases or clusters of possible rare vaccine-induced adverse events.''

Furthermore, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 25, 2004, Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Defense Health Affairs stated, ``And we are delighted to say we now have on-site in the Vaccine Healthcare Center Network, a network of specialty clinics to provide the best possible care in rare situations where serious adverse events follow vaccination. In all our vaccination efforts, we focus on keeping individual service members healthy, so they can return home safely to their families and loved ones.

Although I do not always agree with Dr. Winkenwerder on force protection policy, I do on the importance of the Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network. My amendment with Senators Smith, Corzine, Kennedy, and Akaka updates and recognizes the importance of the VHCs to our Nation's servicemembers.

The original stated purpose of the language in 2001 was narrowly focused on the creation of a DoD Center of Excellence treatment faculty focused on providing treatment and follow-up as part of a system of monitoring adverse events of servicemembers for the anthrax vaccine. In fulfilling that original mission, DoD found that the VCH Network was needed to improve vaccine safety and efficacy for all vaccines, and not just limited to the anthrax vaccine.

To achieve this purpose, VHCs provide education, expert consultations and problem resolution, medical exemption management, disability assessments, and clinical research. These functions are not adequately recognized in the current DoD authorization language and my amendment reflects these expanded roles on behalf of our Nation's sevicemembers.

In fact, during fiscal year 2003 alone, the VHCs responded to over 160,000 contacts and provided case management for over 600 complicated vaccine-related cases for servicemembers. Moreover, just 4 days ago, the Chicago Tribune reported that a study by a researcher at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in conjunction with the Vaccine Healthcare Center there has conducted research that indicates ``military personnel inoculated against smallpox face a seven to eight times greater risk of heart inflammation'' than those who had never been vaccinated.

The study finds that, since the smallpox vaccination program was resumed in 2002, 615,000 servicemembers have been inoculated and that there have been 77 confirmed or suspected cases of heart inflammation, including at least one in my state.

As exemplified by the myopericarditis issue with smallpox vaccine, the VHCs also provide a place to identify uncommon adverse events and help provide early recognition and interdiction which drives policy changes in real time to protect the health and well-being of our Nation's military personnel.

Mr. President, vaccines are a prescription drug and, like any prescription drug, carry risk and side effects. We, as a Nation, cannot ask our servicemembers to continue with a vaccination policy and not recognize this critical fact. The VHC Network serves everybody by providing objective clinical education, services, and research into these matters that better inform all parties, including policymakers, of both the risk and benefits vaccines carry. Moreover, the Network serves to minimize those risks as best as they can.

Army Surgeon General, Lt. General James Peake, urged repeatedly in a memorandum dated February 10, 2004, to commanders and regional medical commands that clinicians utilize the VHC Network resources, while noting the ``U.S. Army lost a valuable Soldier, Rachel Lacy, in April 2003, a month after receiving five vaccinations during mobilization.''

Unfortuantely, this critical resource could have been lost or severely limited without the passage of our amendment. That would be unacceptable, particularly in light of the high praise from Dr. Winkenwerder, Lt. Gen. James Peake and the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board for the critical work VHCs perform. To that end, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the memorandum from Dr. Peake.

And finally, as the use of passive immune globulin and other immune modulators increases, complex interactions and expert evaluation of adverse events will be needed more than ever in support of both our Nation's servicemembers and to guide both military readiness and homeland defense policy. The VHCs are a critical component in that endeavor.

So again, I thank the mangers of the bill, Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin, for agreeing to the Bingaman-Smith-Corzine- Kennedy-Akaka amendment to appropriately reflect and confirm congressional support for the activities undertaken by the VHC Network, as their role is critical to the health and well-being of our Nation's servicemembers.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss section 841 of S. 2400, entitled the Commission on the Future of the National Technology and Industrial Base.

I commend the chairman for his advocacy of this important issue. I would like to make the chairman aware of an effort that has been underway at the National Academy of Sciences.

Yes. For the past 12 years, the Board on Science Technology and Economic Policy at the National Academies, has been evaluating the effects of globalization on key U.S. Industries such as biotechnology, software, telecommunications, semiconductors, flat panel displays, lighting and heavy manufacturing industries such as steel. The board produced a report in 2000 evaluating the effects of globalization on a subset of these industries. They are now in the process of evaluating the effects of outsourcing and globalization trends over the past 4 years on many of these same industries. Many, if not all, of these industries are important to our defense industrial base. I would like to ask the chairman if he believes it is important for the Commission to review the work of Board on Science Technology and Economic Policy as it undertakes its research.

I thank the chairman for his time in this matter.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to help communities in eastern New Mexico develop the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System (ENMRWS). The water supply to be made available by this project is absolutely critical to the region's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to help make this project a reality.

The source of water for the ENMRWS is Ute Reservoir, a facility constructed by the State of New Mexico in the early 1960s. In 1966, Congress authorized Reclamation to study the feasibility of a project that would utilize Ute Reservoir to supply water to communities in eastern New Mexico (Pub. L. 89-561). Numerous studies were subsequently completed, but it was not until the late 1990s that several communities, concerned about their reliance on declining and degraded groundwater supplies in the area, began to plan seriously for the development of a regional water system that would make use of the renewable supply available from Ute Reservoir.

As part of that process, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority was formed to carryout the development of the ENMRWS. The Authority consists of nine communities and three counties in eastern New Mexicop and has been very effective in finalizing the studies and planning necessary to move forward with the project.

This is a very important bill to the citizens of New Mexico. It has the broad support of the communities in the region, as well as financial support from the State of New Mexico. There is no question that completion of the ENMRWS will provide communities in Quay, Roosevelt, and Curry counties with a long-term renewable source of water that is needed to sustain current economic activity and support future growth and development in the region. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, thereby helping to address water needs in the rural West.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to help communities in eastern New Mexico develop the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System (ENMRWS). The water supply to be made available by this project is absolutely critical to the region's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to help make this project a reality.

The source of water for the ENMRWS is Ute Reservoir, a facility constructed by the State of New Mexico in the early 1960s. In 1966, Congress authorized Reclamation to study the feasibility of a project that would utilize Ute Reservoir to supply water to communities in eastern New Mexico (Pub. L. 89-561). Numerous studies were subsequently completed, but it was not until the late 1990s that several communities, concerned about their reliance on declining and degraded groundwater supplies in the area, began to plan seriously for the development of a regional water system that would make use of the renewable supply available from Ute Reservoir.

As part of that process, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority was formed to carryout the development of the ENMRWS. The Authority consists of nine communities and three counties in eastern New Mexicop and has been very effective in finalizing the studies and planning necessary to move forward with the project.

This is a very important bill to the citizens of New Mexico. It has the broad support of the communities in the region, as well as financial support from the State of New Mexico. There is no question that completion of the ENMRWS will provide communities in Quay, Roosevelt, and Curry counties with a long-term renewable source of water that is needed to sustain current economic activity and support future growth and development in the region. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, thereby helping to address water needs in the rural West.

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

I thank the Senator from Washington for yielding me time to speak to her amendment to strike section 3116 and follow-on sections. Section 3116 is labeled the Defense Site Acceleration Completion. That is the name of the section. That is a fair characterization of what the provision intends to do. It does propose to hasten the day when the Department of Energy can declare its work complete.

In my view, it does not accelerate in any way the cleanup of DOE defense sites. It does accelerate the date that DOE can declare its responsibility completed. In fact, to the contrary, the provision allows the Department of Energy to abandon its commitment to clean out these sites and to walk away from them while there are substantial amounts of high-level radioactive waste still in the ground.

Section 3116 is not a model of clarity. I am told the provision no longer applies to DOE sites in Washington State, Idaho, and in New York as it once did. It now only applies to high-level radioactive waste tanks at Savannah River, S.C. There is not specific language in the provision saying that, but I am certainly willing to accept the intent of the provision.

The obvious question is, what is in the Savannah River tanks? From 1953 until the end of the cold war, the Department of Energy at Savannah River has made plutonium for our nuclear weapons. It did so by irradiating uranium fuel in five nuclear reactors on that site and it then reprocessed the spent fuel to separate the plutonium from the highly radioactive waste products. The waste material consists of a mixture of highly toxic, hazardous chemicals used in the chemical separation process--a mixture of that along with a wide variety of highly radioactive fission products and transuranic elements, formed during the nuclear reaction. Some of these fission products emit intense amounts of radiation over a short period of time. Others emit less intense amounts of radiation over a much longer period of time. Both pose a serious danger to the public health and to the environment.

The short-lived radionuclides remain dangerous for hundreds of years. The long-lived ones remain dangerous for thousands of years.

The Department of Energy has been storing this mixture in 51 steel tanks at Savannah River. The tanks each hold on average about a million gallons of waste. In other words, each is about the size of our Capitol dome. I repeat, we have 51 of those tanks, each about the size of the Capitol dome, located at Savannah River. The waste in the Savannah River tanks is, by definition, high-level radioactive waste. We have been using that term in our laws now for over 30 years. Different laws have worded the definition differently, but they have all said essentially the same thing, and that is that high-level radioactive waste is the material that results from reprocessing spent fuel, and that includes both the liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material that settles out of the liquid or is derived from it.

There are two important legal consequences that flow from this tank waste being defined as high-level radioactive waste. The first legal consequence is that its disposal is subjected to licensing and regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That is required under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which was signed into law by President Ford.

The second legal consequence is the waste must be buried in a deep geological repository, rather than being left where it is. This is a requirement we put into law in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which was signed into law by President Reagan.

The Department of Energy has begun removing the liquid waste from the tanks at Savannah River and turning it into glass logs and storing the glass logs until they can be buried in a geologic repository which is expected to be built at Yucca Mountain. Removing all of the sludge that has settled to the bottom of these tanks clearly is going to prove difficult and expensive. So to sidestep that requirement, the Department of Energy would like to reclassify the waste as something other than high-level radioactive waste and leave it where it is.

Years ago the Department of Energy adopted an administrative order asserting that they had the authority to do that. Last fall a Federal judge in Idaho held the order was unlawful.

The Department is now asking Congress to change the law and to give the Department of Energy the power the court said the Department did not have. Section 3116 would do that, so far as the Savannah River tanks are concerned. The language of 3116 is very clear. It says notwithstanding all of the laws that say Savannah River wastes are high-level radioactive wastes, the Secretary of Energy, in his discretion or her discretion, can decide they are not high-level radioactive wastes.

The Secretary's discretion would not be entirely without limits. Section 3116 imposes three tests that have to be met for the Secretary to exercise this discretion, but on close examination those tests impose very few restrictions on the Secretary. Let me talk a minute about each of these three tests.

The first test is that the material ``does not require permanent isolation in a deep geologic repository.'' As I said before, the high- level radioactive waste is made up of both intensely radioactive short- lived radionuclides and less intensively radioactive long-lived radionuclides. The first step speaks to the second group of less intensely radioactive long-lived radionuclides. The need for permanent isolation correlates with the length of time the material remains radioactive. According to the Department of Energy, over 99 percent of the radioactivity now present in the high-level waste tanks is from short-lived radionuclides. These will remain dangerous for several hundred years. But because they will decay to safe levels sometime before the end of this millennium, they do not, according to the Department of Energy, require permanent isolation in the deep geologic repository.

The first test in section 3116 may look like a serious hurdle, but according to the Department of Energy, 99 percent of the radioactivity in the tanks passes that test.

The second test is no better. It requires the secretary to determine that ``highly radioactive radionuclides have been removed to the maximum extent possible.'' The second test speaks to the first proof of radionuclides, intensely radioactive, short-lived ones which DOE believe make up 99 percent of the radioactivity in the tanks.

The second test is no test at all. It does not require DOE to reduce the highly radioactive short-lived radionuclides to meet a public health and safety standard based on the maximum safe dose to the public or a maximum concentration level. It simply says do what can be done ``to the maximum extent practicable.''

That means, as the court said last summer, ``if DOE determines that it is too expensive or too difficult to remove short-lived radionuclides from the waste, DOE is free to say the waste is no longer high-level radioactive waste, even though it will remain dangerous for centuries.''

The third test is the most illusory of the three. At first glance it appears to subject the disposal of the tank wastes to State regulation. If the third test is meant to do that, it marks a major departure in the law. The courts have consistently held that the Atomic Energy Act preempts the States from regulating nuclear waste disposal. The third test confers no authority on the State to regulate nuclear waste disposal. It clearly states that South Carolina's Regulatory Authority must be ``conferred on the State outside this Act.'' So far as I am aware, there is no Federal law that gives South Carolina or any other State the authority to regulate the disposal of high-level radioactive defense waste.

The only agency with authority to regulate the disposal of high-level radioactive waste is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has had that authority for 30 years. Section 3116 strips it of that authority, limits its role to one of ``consultation'' and ``review'' of criteria.

My conclusion is that section 3116 is a very troubling provision. It deregulates the disposal of the Savannah River tank waste in all but name. It is essentially the legislative equivalent of the ``Mission Accomplished'' banner we saw on the aircraft carrier that allowed the Department of Energy to declare its work was done and to walk away from its obligations.

Section 3116 also sets a terrible precedent, in my view. If we agree to give DOE this authority at Savannah River in this bill this year, why not give the same authority with regard to Hanford next year and with regard to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory next year? And with regard to West Valley Demonstration Plant the year after that?

Enactment of section 3116 may also toll the death knell from the Civilian Nuclear Waste Program that we have had in place for many years. That program is already in serious jeopardy. It is years behind schedule. It is likely to be grossly underfunded this year. It is beset by lawsuits and serious technical challenges. Shipping nuclear waste on the public highways and railways will be extremely unpopular. Section 3116 sends the message that we do not need a deep geologic repository for Savannah River tank waste, that it is safe to leave those wastes where they are.

The obvious question is, If it is safe to leave high-level waste in the Savannah River tanks, why not leave those same kinds of wastes at Hanford and at the Idaho laboratory? If it is safe to leave defense wastes where they are, why not leave commercial powerplant wastes where they are, as well?

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Cantwell's amendment and to strike section 3116 from the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Domenici, in urging the Senate to support this nomination. Judith Herrera is very qualified. I compliment the President for nominating her for this position. I compliment my colleague for recommending that nomination. She will serve us well on the district court in New Mexico.

Ms. Herrera began her career as a prosecutor, and has spent many years in private practice. Currently, she is a partner at Herrera, Long, Pound & Komer in Santa Fe, NM. She has also served on the Santa Fe City Council and on the University of New Mexico's Board of Regents. Mrs. Herrera has served with distinction in all of these positions.

I urge my fellow Senators to support her nomination.