Procurement Technical Assistance Program

PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

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

The provisions contained in S. 2457 mirror those contained in Section 3116 of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense authorization bill, which pertain to the reclassification of high-level radioactive waste. Let me be clear: I oppose these provisions. I hope the majority of my colleagues will oppose these provisions as well. I introduced this legislation for the purpose of demonstrating to my colleagues that issues within the scope of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 do not belong within the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This was an issue of some debate on the floor yesterday, and I am pleased that the parliamentarian has in fact referred this legislation to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I am a member. I hope the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee will take note of this fact when debate resumes on Sec. 3116 of his bill after the Memorial Day Recess. A policy shift this significant requires substantial public debate within the committee of primary jurisdiction.

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

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

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