Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, if he has a minute, a question. The President took office saying he was going to change the tone of the debate in Washington. The Senator has served with a number of other Presidents--Democrat and Republican--in the past. I wonder if the Senator believes that the tone has been changed for the better or for the worse? If I am not correct, hasn't the Senator attempted, on numerous occasions, to work in a constructive and cooperative fashion with the White House in fashioning this budget, this spending plan; and hasn't the Senator been rebuffed in those efforts?

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. DAYTON. I appreciate the Senator's candor with regard to the numbers that have been presented here today because it is my understanding--and I am glad the Senator refreshed my memory--that the spending proposals that the administration has sent to the Congress were, in fact, a significant increase, 9 percent, or I believe the Senator said a 13-percent increase in discretionary spending from this fiscal year over to the next, an unheard of increase in discretionary spending. It is also my recollection--I believe the Senator pointed this out-- that, with the change in the budget predictions, the country has gone from looking at surpluses over the next decade to looking at a string of deficits over the next decade. It is this Senator's impression that the administration is trying to put the blame for this fiscal disarray on the Senate or on the House when, in fact, it is the administration's own tax and spending proposals which have created these deficits for this year and for next year, and for as far as the eye can see, and has caused this financial burden to be placed on future generations. It seems to this Senator that this administration is trying, with these tiny little numbers, relatively speaking, to put the blame where it does not belong, which is on this body. I wonder if the Senator will comment on that.

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. DAYTON. From what I understand from the discussion, the Senate Appropriations Committee has come out on time and on budget, and yet we are hung up in these delays. The Senator who chairs that committee, who has done everything right in order to meet these deadlines, today is on the Senate floor expressing the catastrophic effects that will result across the country from the failure to meet these deadlines. This Senator presides a great deal and has not heard anyone else come before the Senate to express his dismay at the human consequences of the failure to come to this agreement. I thank the Senator for bringing these matters to the attention of the Senate and ask, as a final question: What can we do now to try to stave off these catastrophes?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator from West Virginia has an amendment which would seem to embody the intention of what occurred post-World War II, which was the sequential development of a department of such critical importance. I wonder if there is a parallel to be drawn there to instruct all of us that the approach being recommended by the learned Senator from West Virginia is the one that is going to likely produce the much more beneficial result to the country rather than the helter- skelter that would go forward without the Senator's direction.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia, whose explanation has been very clear--last night and also today. I trust the Senator's amendment comes from wisdom gained from many years of watching executive branch organizations, new departments brought together, and, of course, the Senator has the sweep of history both in this institution, and also I recall hearing the Senator last week quote a Roman, and I must confess a week later, whose name and statement I have forgotten, but which the Senator has remembered for all these years. It was something to the effect that reorganizations are just another way of delaying and confusing matters. I wonder if the Senator can share some of that experience gained and the insight into other organizations or reorganizations of Federal agencies, and how that might have suggested some of the oversight that the Senator has in his amendment.

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

Mr. DAYTON. I think the Senator from Vermont is very enlightening as to the timing of that crisis--also following right in the aftermath of World War II, certainly another time where this country faced a very grave threat, leading into the beginning of the Korean war where the country again faced another enormous threat. I wonder if the Senator can comment on how that experience should be instructive to the Senator's amendment. It seems the Senator has foreseen the kind of timetable of bringing back from these various directorates their preliminary plans that would lead to a far more insightful and, I think, constructive reorganization than the one that is contemplated by the proposal of the administration.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the senior Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, who has introduced this legislation to honor Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., a true hero who gave his life on September 11 on the flight that was returning to Washington to cause enormous destruction to either this building perhaps or the White House. No one will ever know for sure. What we do know is the plane was prevented from its intended destructive course by the heroism of Mr. Burnett and others who were on that flight. We know that because on three or four occasions he called his wife, Deena. He spoke with her on a cell phone and communicated his intention and the intention of other passengers to intervene and wrest control of the plane from the hijackers who had commandeered that plane. It was an act of enormous courage. It saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, most likely in our Nation's Capitol. Tragically, it cost Mr. Burnett and the other passengers on that flight their lives. All of us in this body owe a debt of unspeakable gratitude to those incredibly courageous men and women. I had occasion to visit Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Burnett, Sr., the parents of Mr. Burnett, in Minnesota to express our gratitude and share briefly the enormous grief they bear, as well as the grief of Mr. Burnett's wife and three children, which they will carry for the rest of their lives. In a few minutes, we will pass this act to name the post office in Mr. Burnett's honor. Again, I thank Senator Wellstone, my senior colleague, for his thoughtful initiative in this regard, and I thank the Members of the Senate who I anticipate will vote in support of this measure. It is such a small measure of our eternal gratitude to this brave man. May he rest forever in peace and in the annals of the great heroes of this country. I yield the floor. The bill (H.R. 5207) was read the third time and passed.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. (Mr. DAYTON assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my staff person, Krystle J. Klema, be able to be on the floor for my colloquy with Senator Wellstone.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I thank the Senator for graciously taking the Chair so Senator Nelson could join with the Senator from Minnesota and myself. I know the Senator from Michigan, who is presiding, has strong support for this disaster assistance as well. I want to say to my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Minnesota, I am proud to stand with him today, and I am proud to follow his leadership on this disaster assistance legislation. The Senator and I both serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee, along with our colleague from Nebraska. The Senate Agriculture bill had disaster assistance funding in it. The House and the administration would not agree to the inclusion of disaster assistance in the package, which came out of the conference committee and was enacted into law. As the Senator said, it is imperative that the Senate and the House and the administration join together, given what happened in Minnesota, with 17 counties declared a disaster area because of excessive flooding in June. During a recent visit, I saw whole fields of crops underwater--giant lakes created by torrential rains one week, and again the week following. It is hard to see people, many of whom lost their crops last year, struggling again this year. I asked Secretary of Agriculture Veneman last week in a committee hearing: Where is this money that is purportedly available in the legislation that was passed for disaster aid? And she could not identify any. I join with my colleague in saying we must have this assistance. The Senate did it right in its version of the Farm bill. Unfortunately, the House and the administration have blocked disaster aid. We have to try again because farmers are going under if we do not. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank my very distinguished colleague from Nevada for granting me time. I join with my senior colleague from the State of Minnesota who spoke very eloquently before me. I have come independently to the same conclusion as he that I will vote against designating Yucca Mountain as a national nuclear waste repository at this time. I do so because there are simply too many unanswered questions, untested designs, and unproven procedures to approve a project that has such enormous consequences. Building a safe and secure storage site at Yucca Mountain and then filling it with some 77,000 tons of nuclear waste will take the next 30 to 40 years. That is the rest of my generation's lifetime. Throughout those three and four decades, the design, the construction, the loading, the unloading, and the safe transportation of over 150,000 pounds of extremely poisonous nuclear waste must all be done perfectly--at least almost perfectly. One accident, one rupture, one attack would have devastating effects on the lives of people today and for generations to follow, as one look at a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear accident would confirm. That is the easy part, those 30 to 40 years. Now those 150,000 pounds or as much as 200,000 pounds of radioactive waste has to be stored, contained, and isolated perfectly--almost perfectly--for thousands of years. That it must be nearly perfect does not mean it is unattainable or unsustainable, but it does mean that the standards for approval must be very high. The standards of reliability, of proven technology, of public safety must be extraordinarily high. They must be met and maintained with certainty, and that certainty must be guaranteed to the American people. This project is nowhere near that standard today, not even close. That is why we should not even be considering the approval we are being required to give or to deny today. This is not what the law proscribes. The law states, as it has for the last 20 years, that within 90 days after Congress's final approval, which will be today if this body so decides, the Department of Energy shall submit its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to the Secretary of the Department of Energy, the Department is at least 2 years or more away from being ready to submit that application. According to the private project manager, Bechtel Corporation, DOE is 4 years or more away from being able to submit an acceptable application. I was not here in 1982 when the law was passed, but clearly the lawmakers intended, and I believe wisely so, that Congress's final review of this project would be within 90 days, or very shortly before the Department of Energy made its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; in other words, after all the testing and design and evaluation had been completed. Today we can do nothing more, if we are so inclined, to say it looks OK or it does not look OK. A lot more has to be done. As the Senator from Nevada pointed out correctly, the Department of Energy has still almost 200 tests and assessments remaining that it agreed, itself, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would have to be completed before the Department of Energy could even submit an acceptable application for site construction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Just to develop an acceptable application, it has to complete some 200 more assessments. Then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has up to 4 years to review. There is no one else who has the expertise beyond ours and is associated with this project who maintains it is even ready to begin to be considered. Why are we put in a position of acting on it today? Why even consider approving it today? Given those high standards that are necessary, some of the recent critiques of expert advisory boards and commissions are truly alarming. A January 24 letter of this year to Congress by the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board stated: The Board's view is that the technical basis for DOE's repository performance estimates is weak to moderate at this time. Weak to moderate is a long ways from perfect. In a September 18, 2001, letter to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste documented its review of the Department of Energy's performance modeling called TSTA-SR. The committee's ``principal findings are that this system does not lead to a realistic risk-informed result and does not inspire confidence in the TSTA-SR process. In particular, the TSTA- SR reflects the input and results of models and assumptions that are not founded on realistic assessment of the evidence. The consequence is that TSTA-SR does not provide a basis for estimating margins of safety.'' Others who have written and raised similar questions and concerns. I believe we should say no to the Yucca Mountain site today, not to remove it from further consideration but we should not commit ourselves to a decision that will affect the lives of millions of Americans today and for generations and generations to follow based on insufficient evidence, inadequate testing, incomplete analyses, undocumented strategies. In a sense, the Senate would be put in a position to make that attestation today which no one could responsibly make about this project, particularly given this level of assurance that the American people deserve. Finally, as to the citizens of Nevada, they have been remarkably, extraordinarily well served by the two Senators from that State, Senators Reid and Ensign. We preside in the Senate in inverse proportion to our seniority, which means I--being 100th in seniority-- spend as much time presiding as anyone else; I therefore have a chance to observe what is going on in the Senate. The senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has been unbelievable in his tireless pursuit of every Member of this body to discuss and to reason and implore their recognition of the facts as he has so well articulated. Senator Ensign is in his first term and has encountered an enormous responsibility to his State which he has also performed remarkably well. Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, I cannot imagine any two people who could have possibly done more, tried more, put more of themselves, heart and soul, into doing what they believe with all their fervor is the right thing for the people of Nevada, and I believe for the people of the United States, including the people of Minnesota, which is to vote no against Yucca Mountain as a site today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Joint Committee on Printing will meet in SR-301, Russell Senate Office Building, on Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. The Committee will meet to hold a hearing to receive testimony from The Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and Budget; The Honorable Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer, United States Government Printing Office; Ms. Julia F. Wallace, Regional Depository Librarian, representing the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Medical Library Association; Mr. Benjamin Y. Cooper, Executive Vice President for Public Affairs, Printing Industries of America; and Mr. William J. Boarman, President, Printing, Publishing and Media Workers Sector, Communications Workers of America, on Federal Government printing and public access to government documents. Individuals and organizations interested in submitting a statement for the hearing record are requested to call Mr. Matthew McGowan, Staff Director of the Joint Committee on Printing, on 224-3244. For further information regarding the hearing, please contact Mr. McGowan.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, on many occasions in the past year and a half, I have come to the floor on behalf of steelworkers and their families who live on Minnesota's Iron Range in northeastern Minnesota. Like other steel-producing regions, the Iron Range has been hard hit by unfair foreign imports, devastating the United States steel and iron ore industries. And last year, Minnesota's Iron Range economy was rocked by the bankruptcy and closure of the LTV Steel Mining Company in Hoyt Lakes. When the LTV Steel Mining Company closed, 1,400 employees were thrown out of work. Many of these men and women had dedicated their entire working lives to LTV. They are hardworking people with families and bills to pay. In addition to the layoffs, 1,700 retirees lost portions of their pensions and all of their health insurance and life insurance. But if you know anything about Minnesota, you understand that in hard times we pull together and we persevere. This is especially true about the hardworking people of the Iron Range. Today, I'd like to recognize two very unselfish Minnesotans, Jan Omundson and Pam Elj, who have gone above and beyond the call of normal duty to help the people hurt by the LTV closing. For the past 3 months, Jan and Pam traveled more than 160 round-trip miles each day, from the Cities of Duluth and Virginia respectively, to help hundreds of displaced LTV employees and retirees understand their health care options. When an economic tragedy like this strikes a community, it's often a very painful, stressful, and confusing time for the families affected. Thanks to Jan and Pam, people affected now have a much better understanding of their benefits and their rights. In her role as coordinator of the Arrowhead Area Agency on Aging's State Health Insurance Assistance Program, Jan Omundson led this team effort by organizing dozens of informational meetings to educate displaced LTV workers and retirees regarding their options. She was assisted by Pam Elj, who is a counselor with the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency's Senior Insurance Advocacy Program. Together, they met with hundreds of retirees, displaced workers, and their families and outlined detailed and valuable information about options for health care coverage. Jan and Pam were key to the success of this effort and it would not have been possible without the support and resources of the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission, the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency, the Hoyt Lakes Community Credit Union, the City of Biwabik, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota. I thank them all for their dedication and assistance during this very difficult time.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that I might have 10 minutes to speak.

Mr. DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Nevada for the accommodation. I thank the Senator from Alabama as well. Mr. President, I want to start by expressing my appreciation and admiration to the chairman of our Armed Services Committee, on which I am privileged to serve along with the Senator from Michigan, and ranking member, the Senator from Virginia. Both of them have been outstanding mentors and role models for me in the Senate. The legislation which has been brought forward has my full support as a member of the committee. I note that the President proposed $396 billion for national defense for the 2003 budget, a 20-percent increase in spending over the last 2 years. Is my understanding that the committee, which has been working very much on a bipartisan basis, provides after adjustments for the civilian and military retirement dollars, essentially the full amount that the President requested for all activities. It reflects the bipartisan support this committee has for strengthening our national defense--even before the tragic events of September 11, and certainly thereafter. As I said, it involves a very sizable increase in spending. It is supported by this Senator, and by Senators on both sides of the aisle-- in our committee and on the floor. There are other aspects of the bill that I would like to address at a subsequent time. But given the spirit of cooperation and support that has been evidenced, in my view, consistently by the committee, by the chairman of the committee, and by its members to undertake these increases and improvements on a cooperative basis--frankly, as others have noted--the procedures by which the Crusader budget has been proposed to be eliminated is an unfortunate exception. As I say, it is one that strikes me as really not warranted by the actions of the committee in any way whatsoever. The President submitted a budget proposal to the Congress on February 4 and called for $475.6 million to continue in the development of the Crusader. No cutbacks were proposed. There were no reservations expressed about the project. The Crusader is on time, it is on budget, and it is to specifications. In the simulated tests so far, it has been right on target. In the committee hearings, which the Armed Services Committee held quite extensively about the President's proposal for the year 2003, no reservations were expressed by anyone--not by the Secretary of Defense, nor the Deputy Secretary of Defense, nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor the military commanders. In fact, it was just the opposite. There was strong and unqualified support for the commander. I have asked a number of military leaders who have come to my office, and the incoming and outgoing Chiefs of Staff in Europe. I was at the National Training Center in California last year, and I asked tank commanders what they thought of the Crusader. They were unanimously enthusiastic about the Crusader. They were unanimously emphatic about the need for the Crusader to strengthen our artillery. The Secretary of the Army expressed similar support for those same reasons in testimony before the committee. We received testimony in March of this year before the committee by the Army Vice Chief of Staff. As reported in Defense Week the next day--on March 18 of this year--he said ground forces attacking in Afghanistan could have used the Crusader to pound al-Quaida redoubts in the mountains near Gardez. General Keane told the panel on Thursday that, unlike some air- delivered munitions, poor weather would not have stopped the Crusader's precision fire. General Keane said they could have used the Crusader for support of troops attacking in the mountains and have gotten the response of artillery fire at considerable range and distance they could not with any of their other systems. He went on to say if the Army had the Crusader today--meaning in March, in Afghanistan--perhaps three or four of them could have been used there. He said they could have kept the Crusader within the range outside of the immediate battle areas in secure areas. He said the Paladin, by contrast, would have to be positioned closer to the mountains and would need more forces to protect it. To give Senator Inhofe and colleagues on that subcommittee a sense of the Crusader's range and precision, General Keane said they could put it within the beltway outside of Washington, fire it in the air, and hit homeplate in Camden Yards in Baltimore. After hearing all of this testimony and this unqualified support, the committee began its markup of the military budget and Department of Defense request. After about a week of rumors and innuendos, contrary rumors and denials of all of that, we received on the morning of the final markup session of the committee--on May 8 of this year--a copy of a letter from Mr. Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to the majority leader, Senator Daschle, informing him of the administration's decision to terminate the Crusader. We received nothing--this Senator received nothing--from the Secretary of Defense, and, as far as I know, no formal communication to the committee from the Department of Defense. It was treated as though it was a budget adjustment. Since then, there has been this presumption that, of course, the committee will approve the administration's change of mind. Of course, we will all just reverse our course upon command. Of course, we will just disregard all of the expert testimony we received over the last months. Of course, we will disregard whatever research we have done individually. And we will disregard our own views on the importance of this program, and we will just follow into a lockstep by pirouette 4 months after the budget has been submitted. Sixteen months after taking office, the administration has figured out what it wants to do about this program--no consultation or discussion with members of the committee, at least not with this Senator and most of the others with whom I talked. We were told in testimony that no consultation nor forewarning was given to the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor with the Chief of Staff of the Army, nor with commanders in theaters such as Korea and Europe. I am very much concerned and alarmed about the failure, if that is the case--and it has not been refuted--to communicate and to consult with the military leadership of this country. Today, I heard that we are to be held responsible for delays--any delays toward wasting taxpayers' money, if we haven't already approved of this proposed change. It costs $500,000 a day. That is the number I heard. That certainly is one that we not spend lightly. We are proposing to approve a budget of over $1 billion a day on national defense for fiscal year 2003--over $1 billion of taxpayers' money every day. We are going to use that money to defend our borders and our country. We are going to use that money to protect America's interests, our influence, our values, and our way of life--and all over the world. Ultimately and specifically, we are going to use that money to send American men and women--young men and women, in most cases--to places such as Afghanistan, far away, and put them right on the line with their lives and families and children left behind. We owe it to them to have them know they are going into those conditions with every possible advantage, means of force, means of domination, and with a means of coming home alive having accomplished their mission successfully on behalf of our country. I was in Afghanistan, along with some of my colleagues, in January. We had lunch with members of the Armed Forces who are, as I say, young, dedicated, and enthusiastic. They gave up jobs. Those who are in the Reserves voluntarily came out and are standing up for and fighting for our country. When I get General Keane's testimony that the Crusader would make a difference in protecting their lives, then I say that is the consideration, that is the sole consideration, the overriding consideration in whether or not to continue with Crusader. Before this Senate decides and before this country decides to abandon that system, I want to be assured--I want to be guaranteed--that we are going to have comparable firepower coming to their protection and their defense when needed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I inquire as to the time?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to GLBT Pride/Twin Cities on the 30th anniversary of their Pride Celebration. The small march and picnic held 30 years ago has grown into a 2-day spectacular, featuring a Pride Block Party, a boat cruise, a fabulous Festival, and a very special Pride Parade, all of which draw many thousands of participants. It is the largest Pride Celebration in the Midwest, and the third largest in the Nation. It has become a weekend to celebrate and to honor the many, many talented and accomplished men and women in Minnesota's lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual communities and their friends. GLBT Pride/Twin Cities and other GLBT organizations and their members have worked tirelessly to raise public awareness and understanding and to provide supportive services to GLBT individuals and families. As a result of their dedicated efforts during the last three decades, Minnesota has made progress towards achieving full and equal rights for the women and men in our GLBT communities. However, there is still a long way to go. I hope to be here in the United States Senate to witness the passage of Federal legislation banning employment discrimination, preventing hate crimes, and providing domestic partner benefits for GLBT Americans. I also join with Pride/Twin Cities in recognizing June as GLBT Pride Month. All members of Minnesota's GLBT communities deserve to have that pride in themselves, their work, and their accomplishments. I will continue to work with you for the achievement of equal rights, equal protections, and equal opportunities for everyone in Minnesota's Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Bisexual communities.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of Senator Byrd's amendment, and I wish to express my support for this amendment, if my voice will let me do so. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. It is a very important improvement to this legislation. I particularly believe those who found the Dayton-Craig amendment to be anathema should look at this very closely, welcome it, and support it, as should all of my colleagues. It does provide, as the Senator from North Dakota just said correctly, an ongoing involvement of the Members of both the House and the Senate in these negotiations. If we are going to be asked to approve these agreements on an expedited basis when they come to us, then I think it is essential we have this opportunity to participate. The Byrd amendment provides us with a group, the staff, and resources necessary to make qualified judgments. That is an essential role if we are going to have a true partnership with the executive branch. I note the Constitution of the United States, which the distinguished Senator from West Virginia knows so well, ascribes to the legislative branch the sole authority for governing trade negotiations and all aspects of trade. It does not mention the executive branch. Certainly that responsibility has been devolving to a shared relationship, but it is certainly not one this branch could responsibly cede nor would it want to cede. I also point out that given the arrangements with the World Trade Organization, which is still expanding its breadth and its reach, once rules have been established by that body, it is my understanding they can only be changed by unanimous concurrence of all participating countries, which means that once this country has given up to the World Trade Organization any of the laws or the protections that have been established for the benefit of the American people, we cannot unilaterally take them back, which makes it even more important that the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia be passed to give the Congress that oversight and chance to anticipate ahead of time what the consequences are going to be of some of these decisions. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator, again, for his courageous leadership on this issue for so many years.