Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If two-thirds of this body fails to ratify the treaty, we are squandering a unique opportunity to make the world a safer place for our children. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is really quite simple: It bans all nuclear explosives testing for weapons or any other purposes. This treaty does not ban nuclear weapons. We currently have some 6,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Nothing in this treaty requires us to give up these weapons. Nor does the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty require us to limit our own nuclear testing in a way that we have not already chosen to do unilaterally. Yet, opponents of the treaty have painted a picture of dire consequences and doom that requires a response. The history of the 20th century is replete with lessons about the danger posed to us by nuclear weapons. Those of us who remember when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki towards the end of World War II are vividly aware of the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms are not a dry topic for policy debate. They are devastating weapons that have been used and could be used again by any nation that currently possesses nuclear weapons or the capability to develop them. It was not so long ago that we were in the midst of a nuclear arms race during the Cold War. Those of us who remember the Cuban missile crisis and the palpable fear that swept across the country at that time are well aware of the dangerous potential for a crisis to escalate between nations with nuclear capabilities. Yet in the midst of the Cold War, we were able to negotiate the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty which prohibits nuclear explosions for weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space and under water. Must we be on the brink of crisis or engaged in another arms race to recognize the value of a nuclear test ban treaty? The Berlin Wall may have fallen and the Cold War may be over but the possibility of new and threatening nuclear powers emerging in the next century must still inform our national security policy. Our formidable stockpile of weapons may serve as a deterrent to the current nuclear weapon states, but far more frightening is the prospect of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of a rogue nation or terrorist organization. There is no question that a world without nuclear weapons is a safer one. However, we have long moved beyond that point. Rather, we have pursued--for the most part in a bipartisan fashion--arms control agreements and policies to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. Thus, it defies logic that the Senate would not embrace this tool to help us ensure that there are fewer nuclear weapons and fewer advanced nuclear weapons. Without nuclear explosive testing, those attempting to acquire new nuclear weapons cannot be confident that these weapons will work as intended. Banning testing is tantamount to banning the development of nuclear weapons. Since the signing of the CTBT treaty, 154 states have signed the treaty and 51 have ratified it. A smaller group of 44 states which have nuclear power reactors or nuclear research reactors and are members of the Conference on Disarmament are required to ratify the treaty for it to go into force. Of this group, 41 have signed the treaty and 26 have ratified it. Today, only five countries are nuclear weapons states and only three countries are considered to be nuclear ``threshold'' states. Limiting nuclear explosive testing is the key to keeping the number of nuclear weapon states down. For those of my colleagues who see no value in pursuing arms control and policies to limit the development of nuclear weapons--weapons that one day may be directed toward us or our allies I say that you are out of step with the American people. Arms control does not compromise our national security: it bolsters it. Polling on this issue and other arms control issues indicate that the American people recognize that we are safer if there are fewer nuclear arms in the world, especially when we continue to have the most robust conventional and nuclear forces in the world. Indeed, the CTBT locks in our nuclear superiority, for it is the U.S. government that has conducted more nuclear explosive tests than any other nation. We are integrating the knowledge acquired during our 1000-plus tests with ongoing non-nuclear testing and the science-based Stockpile Stewardship program to monitor the reliability of our weapons. Although some critics have described this approach as risky and incomplete, the three directors of our nuclear weapons labs have all affirmed that this approach is sufficient to maintain the safety and reliability of our stockpile. And, they will continue to review these findings on an annual basis. Should the lab directors be unable to vouch for the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons, I have no doubt that they will advise the President accordingly. For the safeguards package accompanying the treaty, and reflecting current U.S. policy relative to the treaty, states that the CTBT is conditioned on: The understanding that if the President of the United States is informed by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy (DOE)--advised by the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Directors of DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories and the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command--that a high level of confidence in the safety or reliability of a nuclear weapon type which the two Secretaries consider to be critical to our nuclear deterrent could no longer be certified, the President, in consultation with Congress, would be prepared to withdraw from the CTBT under the standard ``supreme national interests'' clause in order to conduct whatever testing might be required. In fact, opponents argue that this treaty cannot restrain nations from testing nuclear weapons because there is nothing to prevent nations from withdrawing from the treaty. That is the case, of course, for all international treaties. While there are no guarantees that this treaty will stop nations from testing, signing the CTBT makes it more difficult for a nation to conduct nuclear tests. A nation must balance its desire to conduct nuclear tests with the likelihood it will be subject to international condemnation. Will we be able to overcome international pressure should the President be advised that we need to conduct nuclear explosive tests again? I am hopeful we will never reach that point, but given the willingness of some members to reject this treaty today, I don't believe that international pressure will prevent us from heeding the advice of our nation's nuclear weapons experts. We have heard much over the last few days from those who say that we should reject the CTBT because the treaty is not verifiable. Yes, there are some nuclear tests we will not be able to verify, particularly at the lowest levels. This would be the case whether the treaty was in force or not. There is a strong case to be made, however, that tests difficult to verify are at low enough levels to render them militarily insignificant. Treaty opponents also neglect to mention that we are worse off in our ability to monitor nuclear testing around the world without the CTBT. As Secretary Cohen stated in his testimony to the Armed Services Committee last week, ``I think that our capacity to verify tests will be enhanced and increased under the treaty by virtue of the fact that we'd have several hundred more monitoring sites across the globe that will aid and assist our national technical means.'' If we fail to ratify the CTBT not only are we squandering an opportunity to advance our own national security interests by limiting nuclear testing, but we are at risk of undermining everything we have achieved until now to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. As Paul Nitze, President Reagan's arms control negotiator, explained: If the CTBT is not ratified in a timely manner it will gravely undermine U.S. non-proliferation policy. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the primary tool for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, was made permanent in 1995 based on a firm commitment by the United States and the other nuclear weapon states to negotiate a CTBT by 1996. Violation of the spirit, if not the letter of this NPT related commitment of 1995 could give nations an excuse to withdraw from the Treaty, potentially causing the NPT regime to begin to erode and allowing fears of widespread acquisition of nuclear weapons by many nations to become reality. By taking away the most significant weapon in the battle to prevent their spread, failure to ratify the CTBT would fundamentally weaken our national security and facilitate the spread of nuclear weapons. Instead of being a leader in the fight against nuclear proliferation, the United States would have itself struck a blow against the NPT. Our military leaders have also been advocates for the CTBT. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Mr. Nitze's remarks when he said in his testimony last week, ``The CTBT will help limit the development of more advanced and destructive weapons and inhibit the ability of more countries to acquire nuclear weapons. In short, the world will be a safer place with the treaty than without it, and it is in our national security interests to ratify the CTBT treaty.'' Four of the previous five chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff support our ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The CTBT is not the product of one administration. Rather it is the culmination of the work and ideas of several administrations. The decision to place a moratorium on nuclear testing was first made in 1992, by President George Bush when he announced a five-year moratorium on tests to develop new warheads, and then when he signed legislation containing the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment banning nuclear testing for at least one year. That testing moratorium has been maintained by President Clinton. And, none of the major presidential candidates have said that they are prepared to end this moratorium and begin conducting nuclear tests. This treaty is not a Democratic treaty: It was President Eisenhower who said that the failure to achieve a nuclear test ban was one of greatest disappointments of his administration. And it was President Eisenhower who said, ``This Government has stood, throughout, for complete abolition of weapons testing subject only to the attainment of agreed and adequate methods of inspection and control.'' Mr. President, that day has arrived. This treaty is an American achievement. It was American determination and leadership that brought the CTBT negotiations to conclusion, and it is American leadership which invigorates international arms control efforts in general. I support these efforts. The debate we are having is being watched around the world. Our allies are dumbfounded that we are on the verge of defeating the CTBT and so am I. I deplore the partisanship which has underscored this debate. This treaty is not about politics. I urge my colleagues to review the merits of this treaty in a non-partisan fashion. It is clear from the partisan divide that this issue is very much caught up in the politics of this institution. So, I wish we had put off further debate and a vote on ratification for another day and give the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the unbiased scrutiny it deserves.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the view of the Senators from Michigan and California regarding this issue. For many years, I too have grown concerned by the trend away from healthy food choices and toward eating patterns that may lead to tremendous health care costs in the future. To the extent that human health is a result or human choices, there is probably no better example than in what we choose to eat. In my opinion, American consumers receive too much persuasion regarding diet from our popular culture and far too little from those best qualified to provide good counsel. In the instance of the matter raised by the Senator from Michigan, I am not sure what benefits to public policy are achieved by an never ending discussion within political circles where expertise in human nutrition is probably lacking. Does this send a good strong message to the American consumer regarding the right choices to make regarding nutrition? I hardly think so. It is time, it is long time, for politicians to step back and let the experts decide what is best for the American consumer. The Senator from Michigan makes some valid points regarding the need for a common sense approach to nutrition and public health. I hope the Department of agriculture recognizes that their responsibly transcends the political winds where some matters, such as sound nutritional advice, have no place. I would not expect doctors at the Mayo Clinic to take my advice on how to proceed with a delicate operation. Further, I would not expect nutrition experts at USDA to take my advice on what details best constitute a totally balance diet for a certain population beyond my suggestion that they use their best judgement base don their knowledge and experience. If they don't follow those standards it is unclear why they are there in the first place. tobacco provisions

Mr. KOHL. This particular language was offered in the conference committee, and it does not appear in either the House or Senate versions of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bills or reports.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Michigan, and he is correct, there is language in the statement of managers that instructs the Department of agriculture not to make any exceptions to the WIC sugar cap.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will be voting against the fiscal year 2000 Foreign Operations appropriations bill conference report. Although I supported this bill when it came through the Senate, I was hopeful that during the conference we would find the resources to address the serious deficiencies in this bill. Unfortunately, that was not the case and we have before us a bill that dramatically cuts the Administration's request for foreign operations by 14 percent. At a time of great uncertainty around the world, when we are being called on to foster new democracies, support peacekeeping operations, prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and provide critical support for the ongoing Middle East peace process, we have before us a bill which threatens to undermine many of these vital foreign policy interests. If we nickel and dime our foreign policy priorities now, we will pay a higher price down the road when we respond to the ensuing international crises. I have generally supported our foreign aid budget. It is a less than one percent of our annual budget, a small amount to protect our national interests and provide tremendous benefit to those in need. In the past, however, when our spending contributed to burgeoning deficits, I opposed foreign aid or for that matter any spending bill that surpassed the spending levels of the previous year. However, in this era of budget surpluses the debate has shifted to a question of priorities. And, it is in this context that I must oppose this bill. We cannot afford to give short shrift to basic priorities traditionally funded in this bill. It is my hope that after the President vetoes this bill, we produce a bipartisan foreign operations budget that can be supported by all.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their good efforts and sense of fairness in putting together the VA-HUD Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. We all agree that this year's attempts to stay within the spending caps has forced us all to make some tough choices and to work that much harder to reach consensus and complete our appropriations work in a timely and responsible manner. Senators Bond and Mikulski are to be commended for their hard work. I would ask for a clarification on a point of concern for my constituents in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As you know, the VA-HUD bill contains funds in support of several important economic development initiatives in Wisconsin, including both the Metcalfe Neighborhood and Menomonee Valley Redevelopment projects in Milwaukee. I am pleased that the Committee has expressed support for both projects, but would simply ask if the Chairman and Ranking Member would have any objection to shifting the amount of funds distributed between these projects during the conference negotiations. In other words, would you have any objection to shifting funds designated for the Menomonee Valley project to the Metcalfe Neighborhood project? I ask for this clarification in order to allow the City of Milwaukee the flexibility to reallocate the funds provided in keeping with its economic development needs and timeframes for project completion.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Ted Stewart, as any other nominee, deserves a vote. And eventually, I expect to vote for him, because I respect the judgment of my friend Orrin Hatch and of the President. But there is a long line of qualified nominees ahead of him and, at least at this point, it's not right for him to ``cut'' in line. For example, just compare Mr. Stewart's path with that of another qualified candidate, Tim Dyk, a nominee for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Dyk was first nominated 18 months ago, came out of Committee with strong bipartisan support, then stalled on the floor in the last days of the session because of a ``secret'' hold. He was nominated again eight months ago, and he has still never been placed on the agenda. As for Mr. Stewart, he was nominated less than two months ago, and it took him just 48 hours to go from nomination, to hearing, to Committee approval. Now Mr. Stewart is up for a full Senate vote just 53 days after he was nominated. Meanwhile, five hundred and two days after Tim Dyk was nominated, he seems to be going nowhere fast. That makes no sense to me or, I suspect, to Chairman Hatch, who also supports this nominee. Mr. President, as with Mr. Stewart, Mr. Dyk will, I predict, be confirmed with bipartisan support. He's a first-rate intellect. He passed this Committee by a 14 to 4 vote last year, and all of us know that the Federal Circuit would be lucky to have someone of his caliber. Like Tim Dyk and Ted Stewart, there are many other deserving nominees out there. Let's not play favorites. These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ``up or down'' vote. And, more importantly, the American people deserve prompt action, so that our courts can stay on top of their workload, and continue putting criminals behind bars. So, Mr. President, I expect to support Ted Stewart, but don't think he alone should get the timely consideration that all nominees-- including Tim Dyk, Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez--deserve. So I hope we can get an agreement to move forward not only Mr. Stewart, but also other deserving nominees. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would compensate a company that built a school building for the Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe in my state of Wisconsin. It would also clarify ownership of the building. The educational program of the school, as well as the operation and maintenance funding are provided to the Tribe through a grant from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. When a number of classrooms were condemned, the BIA provided a grant to the school to lease temporary space while the classrooms were replaced. Rather than lease space, the Tribe entered into a lease/ purchase agreement with a contractor for construction of an 8,400 square foot building. When the Bureau learned that the Tribe had not used the initial grant payment to lease space, they declined to provide additional money to the tribe for this project since the BIA was, at the same time, providing about $2 million for the tribe to replace the condemned classrooms. All of this and more is detailed in an audit report issued by Interior's Inspector General last March. It is my understanding that this amendment will have no impact on construction projects which are to begin in fiscal year 2000. To that end, I would urge the chairman to call on BIA to identify before conference any potential negative impact associated with this amendment. amendment no. 1592, as modified (Purpose: To provide funds for the Forest Service to acquire lands at Lake Logan, NC) On page 65, line 18, strike ``$37,170,000'' and insert ``$38,170,000''.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. That is correct. Will the Senator from Kansas describe his amendments?

Mr. KOHL. Your amendment, expressing the sense-of-the-Senate regarding ginseng, was inadvertently left off the list for the Manager's amendment. However, it should be noted, that the amendment was not excluded based on its substance, but only because of a regrettable omission.

Mr. KOHL. I would like to assure Senator Feingold that I will work toward inclusion of this provision in the conference report. The Senator is correct that there was no objection raised to his amendment and I will make that point clear to my fellow conferees.

Mr. KOHL. I am aware of the Senator's amendment. Will the Senator please describe his amendment?

Mr. KOHL. I would like to assure the Senator from Kansas that I will work with Senator Cochran, Chairman of the Subcommittee, to make all members of the conference committee aware of the objectives of these three amendments. The Senator also has my assurance that I hope we can overcome any remaining objections to his amendment relating to CRP cross compliance. Further, I would like the Senator to know that I will continue discussions with all parties regarding his other two amendments to see if it will be possible to give them favorable consideration during conference committee action.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I rise to engage the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, in a colloquy on an item in the Forest Service budget which needs some clarification. The fiscal year 2000 budget justification submitted by the administration included $300,000 for planning and design of a new facility at the Forest Products Lab in Madison, WI, to accommodate a move of the Forest Service's regional office from Milwaukee to Madison. However, on April 15, 1999, during a hearing in the Appropriations Committee on the Forest Service budget Mike Dombeck, the Chief of the Forest Service, reiterated what the Forest Service has told me in the past: The Forest Service has withdrawn the proposal to move its Milwaukee office. The idea of moving the regional office from Milwaukee first came up in response to concerns about the rent in Milwaukee. Since then General Services Administration (GSA) has indicated that by fiscal year 2000, the rent in Milwaukee will be reduced by 18 percent, eliminating the need for the move. During the Appropriations Committee's markup, we inadvertently included $300,000 for the proposed move in the Forest Service's reconstruction and maintenance budget. Since the Forest Service and GSA have confirmed that the move will not and should not go forward, the Committee is directing the Forest Service to use the $300,000 in this account at the Forest Products Lab to expand the planned heat, ventilation and air conditioning work already scheduled to occur at the lab. The funding should be used to replace air conditioning equipment for buildings 33 and 34. The current equipment is more than 30 years old and is in poor condition, lacking automated controls so overtime staffing is needed to operate the equipment on weekends. Replacement of the air conditioning chillers in these buildings will be more energy efficient and will reduce overtime costs.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator from Washington's courtesy and look forward to working with him in conference to ensure that this money is spent as the Committee intended. grand staircase-escalante national monument

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Washington for his remarks. weatherization assistance program

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to engage the distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, on a matter relating to the Land Acquisition and State Assistance account for the National Park Service. I was pleased to see that the Committee chose to provide funding for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail in this account. One of eight National Scenic Trails in the United States, the Ice Age Trail meanders through 31 Wisconsin counties, generally following the terminal moraine. As I noted in my request to the Subcommittee, the depth of commitment to the Ice Age Trail in the state of Wisconsin is impressive. Many volunteers, local governments, and private organizations have contributed to the development of the trail. The state of Wisconsin has also provided essential matching funds to the trail's many partners. One of the most compelling aspects of this request for funding was the commitment from the State of Wisconsin to match the federal funding we are providing for Ice Age Trail land acquisition.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the distinguished Senators from Washington and West Virginia have brought up the issue of Forest Service research. As they have noted, there is some significant research being conducted by the Forest Service, vital to forest health management and forest productivity that the Committee supports. Am I correct in my understanding that it was the Committee's intention in its discussion of Forest Service research in the Committee's report to maintain for fiscal year 2000 the forest products utilization research and supporting research activities conducted at the Forest Products Lab in Madison, Wisconsin, at the fiscal year 1999 funding level?

Mr. KOHL. Cutting these research programs would dramatically decrease the Nation's ability to conserve scarce forest resources. It would eliminate work on major research issues in western softwood forests and in eastern hardwoods. Forest products research defrays forest management costs, increases fiber availability to meet the Nation's need for wood and fiber, speeds the acceptance of new and more efficient utilization technologies, and enhances the development of technologies that will restore economic vitality to forest-dependent communities. Curbing forest product research would also eliminate technical expertise on wood use, particularly in the area of housing.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to clarify that during the passage of the Agriculture Appropriations bill last night, S. 1233, Senator Gordon Smith's amendment on cranberry marketing was adopted without the proper co-sponsorship. Mr. Smith's cranberry marketing amendment, begun by Senator Wyden, was to be co-sponsored by Senator Wyden and myself, as well as Senators Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, and Murray.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the amendment I introduce will increase the University of Wisconsin's Babcock Institute's Special Research Grant to $800,000, with $300,000 being appropriated from the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service's (CSREES) Competitive Research Grant Market, Trade and Policy account. This amendment will also increase funding for the University's Food System Research Group Special Research Grant to $700,000, with $200,000 appropriated from the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service's (CSREES) Competitive Research Grant Nutrition, Food Quality and Health account. amendment no. 1561 (Purpose: To provide an additional $2,000,000 for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, offset from the Economic Research Service) Amend page 22, line 26 by increasing the dollar figure by $2,000,000. Amend page 9, line 8 by reducing the dollar figure by $2,000,000. Amend page 9, line 15 by striking the line and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``2225); Provided further, That university research shall be reduced below the fiscal year 1999 level by $2,000,000.'' GIPSA amendment

Mr. KOHL. I concur in my colleague's comments that funding for this program should be an item of discussion and greater support during conference with the House on this bill, and will work with him to that end. gmo access in southeast asia

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Cochran and his staff, particularly Becky Davies, and Galen Fountain from my staff. Senator Cochran has been very cooperative, very supportive. I think he has done a great job in managing this bill. He has my appreciation and my thanks. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Cynthia Garman-Squier, Dan Alpert, and John Jennings, fellows working in Senator Bingaman's office, be accorded the privilege of the floor today, August 4, and during the pendency of S. 1233, the Agriculture appropriations bill and any votes thereupon.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes. I rise today in strong opposition to cloture on the majority leader's motion to recommit. If it carries, the Agriculture appropriations bill will be reported back to the floor with what is known as the Jeffords dairy compact amendment and will be subject to 30 hours of continuous debate. Now, as most in the Senate know by now, I am committed to fighting the creation, expansion, or continuation of the price-fixing cartels known as dairy compacts. They embody bad national policy, bad economic policy, bad precedent, and disastrous implications for farmers who are forced to operate outside the protectionist walls these compacts throw up. But that is not only why I oppose the Jeffords amendment. I oppose the Jeffords amendment because it would do something much worse. It would remove the Federal Government from the milk market order system. The Jeffords compact amendment would specifically disallow USDA from spending money to administer the milk market order system. What would be the result of that? According to the Secretary of Agriculture, with whom I spoke yesterday, the result would be ``chaos and confusion'' in the dairy industry. USDA would have no way to enforce any price system, so processors would end up setting the price of milk. Farmers would have no recourse to USDA or anywhere else if they thought they were receiving an unfair price. What does the amendment achieve by creating this mess? Certainly not what its proponents claim. The amendment would not continue the current pricing system, or 1-A, as many of you know it. Regardless of whether this amendment passes or not, the old pricing system will expire on October 1. I have a letter from the general counsel of USDA that says just that, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.