Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. The third amendment, No. 382, deals with tracking, reporting on what is actually happening in the country right now with welfare reform.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No; I just did--

Mr. WELLSTONE. I modified amendment No. 381.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my amendment, amendment 381, entitled ``Provision of Information and Guidance to the Public Regarding Environmental Contamination at U.S. Military Installations Formerly Operated by the United States that Have Been Closed,'' is a simple, straightforward amendment, but one which can potentially go a long way toward ensuring that the United States leaves a positive environmental legacy behind when we withdraw from military bases overseas. As we have withdrawn from our bases around the world, the U.S. military has taken some steps to clean-up contamination at those bases before leaving. But there are still many convincing reports that contamination has been left behind. As the New York Times noted last December in an editorial, ``Fuels, lubricants, cleaning fluids and other chemicals are leaching into groundwater, and unexploded shells linger on testing grounds long after American soldiers leave.'' This is especially true in the Philippines, where we withdrew from Subic Bay and Clark Air Base, in 1992. And it will soon apply to Panama where will finish our withdrawal at the end of 1999. I understand very well that the Pentagon has no legal obligations under our treaties with these countries to pay for a clean-up of environmental contamination. And I am not calling for any funding for such a clean-up. What this amendment requires the Pentagon to do is simply to provide as much information as possible and to cooperate in interpreting that information so that nations such as the Philippines can complete environmental studies to tell them exactly what has been left behind. So far the Pentagon has turned over substantial information to the Philippine government, but it has done so slowly and grudgingly. We need to be more forthcoming to help the Filipinos deal with this issue before the contamination in the Subic and Clark areas causes further health problems. This amendment is intended to protect the legacy of the U.S. in those countries where we maintained bases. It does not look at the environmental issue as a legal issue but as a moral one. At a time when anti-Americanism may be growing in certain parts of the world we need to ensure that in those countries that are our longtime allies, we do what we can to promote a positive image of the U.S. even after we leave our bases. We will continue to have close military and political relations with countries such as the Philippines and Panama and we should not let this environmental issue fester and become an impediment to good relations. The amendment as modified applies only to bases already closed. Initially I had intended to extend it to bases which would be closing in the future, which would include our facilities in Panama. However, since I understand that sensitive negotiations are underway on this very issue between the U.S. and Panama and I did not want this amendment to in any way interfere with the successful conclusion of those negotiations. But I want the record to show that I believe that we should be very forthcoming in releasing information on environmental conditions at our facilities in Panama as we close them. I would like to see the Pentagon avoid the long delays in providing information which we have seen in the Philippine case by following the spirit of this amendment. Of course, if we see a similar problem in the case of Panama we may have to revisit this issue next year and propose a similar provision to require the Department of Defense to make information available publicly. If we assist our strategic partners in their efforts to complete environmental baseline studies, it is quite likely that any clean-up which occurs down the road will be done by American companies, who are the leaders in this field. Without the information and the necessary studies these countries are unable to identify the scope of the problem and begin to move toward some type of amelioration. Once the studies are in hand they may be able to approach international lenders, such as the World Bank, for funding and subsequently some clean-up contracts may go to U.S. companies. Mr. President, when we close our bases and leave behind environmental contamination, the people who suffer from the contamination are almost always people already living in poverty and already struggling to maintain good health. They do not also need to contend with a toxic legacy left by the U.S. military. Just to highlight one of the most disturbing cases, I want to discuss the situation in the Philippines and especially at the site of the former Clark Air Base. According to a recent report in the Philippine Star Newspaper, a forensic expert at the Commission of Human Rights (CHR) identified 29 persons who were living at volcano evacuation centers who were found to be suffering from various ailments attributed to mercury and nitrate elements left by the Americans when they abandoned their air base at Clark in 1991. ``The clinical manifestation exhibited by the patients were consistent with chemical exposure,'' the report said. It noted that 13 children aged one to seven ``manifested signs and symptoms of birth defects and neurological disorders,'' adding that ``four females suffered spontaneous abortions and still births.'' ``These can be attributed to mercury exposure,'' the report said. It also reported ``central nervous system disorders, Kidney disorder and cyanosis'' among the persons at evacuation center at Clark, ailments he said can be traced to nitrates exposure.'' Earlier, the CHR forensic office staff collected water samples from the deep wells at the evacuation center in Clark and the Madapdap resettlement site for volcano victims in Mabalacat, Pampanga. The samples were later brought to the metals lab of the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) for analysis. In a report dated April 16, the EMB found 200 milligrams of mercury per liter of water and from 386 to 27 mg of nitrate per liter of water in the Clark area. ``These two chemicals, together with coliform for bacteria were found to be present in water in values exceeding the standard set by the WHO,'' the report said. The report recommended the immediate removal of the residents at Clark, and the thorough diagnosis and treatment of the patients.'' Among the victims identified in the report were Edmarie Rose Escoto, 5; Kelvin, 7; Martha Rose Pabalan, 4; 8-month-old Alexander; Sara Tolentino, and Abraham Taruc, who all had deformities to their lower limbs and cannot walk. Rowell Borja, 5, and Sheila Pineda, 3, both had congenital heart ailments. Skin disorders were also found prevalent in other children, while cysts and kidney disorders were observed in adults. The People's Task Force for Bases Cleanup (PTFBC) has pointed out that ``there is more than enough preliminary evidence of the toxic waste problem at the former U.S. bases in the Philippines.'' Among the documents that have confirmed the presence of toxic wastes at the former bases are pamphlets from the U.S. Department of Defense entitled ``Environmental Review of the Drawdown Activities at Clark Airbase'' (September 1991) and ``Potential Restoration sites on Board the U.S. Facility, Subic Bay.'' (October 1992). The PTFBC also cited 2 reports of the U.S. Government Accounting Office titled ``Military Base Closure, U.S. Financial Obligations at the Philippines'' (Oct. 1992) as well as an independent report of the WHO on May 9, 1992. Mr. President, I recently received a letter from the Philippine Study Group of Minnesota expressing their concerns about the environmental contamination left by the U.S. military at the former Clark Air Base. They reported the results of a trip to the Philippines by two young Filipina-American women, Christina Leano and Amy Toledo, who have been working with the affected populations near Clark field and have been meeting with my staff in Minnesota and here in Washington. When these two young women returned from the Philippines, they communicated the concern of the Filipino people about the problems of toxic waste remaining at both Clark and Subic. The problems are of sufficient concern to municipal governments near Clark that they tried to develop systems to deliver alternative water sources to the affected populations. However, they do not have the necessary resources. They said that the concerns of the people near Clark have been front page news in the Philippines and Philippine Senator Loren Legarda will soon hold hearings in this issue. The Philippine Study Group of Minnesota wrote to me, and I quote: These bases . . . have severe problems that demand immediate attention. It is very unfortunate that the U.S. Department of Defense will not admit that they left polluted sites when they vacated the bases. Contrary to statements made by Secretary of State Albright, when she was in the Philippines last summer, the Department of Defense will not even release important documents needed by Philippine Development authorities. We need at a minimum to see that all relevant documents are turned over to Philippine authorities. This includes key documents such as information on the construction of the wells and water supply system at Clark and hydrologic surveys for Clark which should be released to the Clark Development Corporation (CDC). Currently, the CDC does not have drawings or data on the water system and they are trying to improve the water delivery system without the data they need. The Philippine Study Group of Minnesota say they ``are incredulous that the Defense Department will not even release those non-military technical documents that would be of great help to Philippine authorities.'' This amendment would require the Defense Department to do that. It is a simple, reasonable step toward improving the environmental situation for the people of the Philippines. It is a step in the direction of assuring our allies that when the U.S. closes a military base, it leaves behind a legacy of friendship, cooperation, and sensitivity to environmental justice--not a toxic legacy. Mr. President, we have a long history with the Philippines. From the turn of the century until 1991, except for the period of Japanese occupation during WWII, U.S. military forces used lands in Central Luzon and around Subic Bay in the Philippines as military bases which grew to be among the largest U.S. overseas bases in the world. The main purpose of Subic Bay Naval Base was to service the U.S. Navy Seventh Fleet. Forested lands were also used for training exercises. Clark Air Base served as a major operations and support facility during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. In 1991, more than 7,000 military personnel were stationed at Clark in addition to dependents and civilian support. Operations carried out on the bases included, but were not limited to: fuel loading, storage, distribution, and dispensing; ship servicing, repair, and overhaul; ammunition transfer, assembly, destruction, and storage; aircraft servicing, cleaning, repair, and storage; base vehicle fleet servicing, cleaning, repair, overhaul, and operation; power generation; electricity transformation and distribution; steam generation; water treatment and distribution; sewage collection and treatment; hazardous waste storage and disposal; bitumen production; electroplating; corrosion protection; and weed and pest control. These activities, for many years not conducted in a manner protective of the environment, lead to substantial contamination of the air, soil, groundwater, sediments, and coastal waters of the bases and their surroundings. This was not unique to the Philippines. Military and industrial activities in the U.S. and around the world have had similar effects. Contaminants include, but are not limited to, petroleum hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCB's metals, asbestos, acids, explosives and munitions. Whether or not radioactive wastes are present is uncertain. The Philippine Senate voted in 1991 not to renew the bases agreement between the two countries. In June of that same year, Mt. Pinatubo erupted hastening U.S. withdrawal from Clark Air Base. U.S. forces left Subic Naval Base in 1992, ending almost a century of occupation of these vast areas of Luzon. Notwithstanding initial Department of Defense protestations to the contrary, substantial amounts of hazardous materials and wastes were left behind at the time of the U.S. departure both on the surface and in various environmental media. According to a GAO report issued in 1992, If the United States unilaterally decided to clean up these bases in accordance with U.S. standards, the costs for environmental clean-up and restoration could approach Superfund proportions. Environmental officers at both Subic Bay Naval Facility and Clark Air Base have proposed a variety of projects to correct environmental hazards and remedy situations that pose serious health and safety threats.'' None of these projects was undertaken prior to U.S. departure from the baselands. A study commissioned by the WHO in 1993, in order to assess potential environmental risks at Subic Bay, identified a number of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites and recommended a complete environmental assessment. Two study teams visited the sites in 1994, under the sponsorship of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, and not only found evidence of environmental contamination but carefully documented the lack of existing capacity in the Philippines, whether in government, university, or private sectors, to assess and remediate this complex problem. The health and safety issues are not theoretical or contingent on future development of the bases. At the present time rusting and bulging barrels of hazardous materials are sitting uncovered at Clark. There are reports of exposed asbestos insulation in buildings vacated by departing U.S. personnel. For years waste materials from the ship repair facility were dumped or discharged directly into Subic Bay, contaminating sediments, and now residents from surrounding communities eat fish and shellfish harvested from this area. Thousands of evacuees displaced from homes destroyed by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and lava flows which followed have been temporarily housed in tents and makeshift wooden structure on Clark Air Base at a site previously occupied by a motorpool. They obtain drinking and bathing water from groundwater wells. Just beyond the Dau gate, about 300 yards from this evacuation center, is the permanent community of Dau where many thousands of residents routinely use groundwater for drinking, cooking, and bathing. Because of complaints of gross contamination of water from some of the wells in the evacuation area, including visible oily sheen, foul taste, and gastrointestinal illness, one sample was tested at the laboratories of the University of the Philippines in early 1994 and found to contain oil and grease. Limited by laboratory capability, the analysis did not include the wide range of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, fuels, fuel additives, and other compounds which commonly contaminate groundwater in the U.S. and in other countries where similar military and industrial activities have taken place. Many of these substances have important health effects when present even in extremely small amounts--health effects which may take years to become apparent--including cancer, birth and developmental abnormalities, and neurological or immunological damage. Moreover, there are numerous instances in the U.S. where contaminated groundwater at military bases has migrated off-base, sometimes for a distance of several miles, entering the drinking water of surrounding communities and posing a threat to public health. This is not only possible but likely at Clark Air Base, only one of numerous sites of concern at both bases, and one which is beyond existing Philippine capacity to assess let alone to remediate. When President Clinton visited the Philippines in November 1994 both he and President Ramos acknowledged that the issue of base contamination would need to be further investigated. However, President Clinton stated that, ``We have no reason to believe at this time that there is a big problem that we left untended. We clearly are not mandated under treaty obligations to do more.'' He went on to say ``. . .we decided we should focus on finding the facts now, and when we find them, deal then with the facts as they are.'' Though there may be no treaty obligation to address this issue, there are obvious moral and public health arguments which should compel the U.S. to accept responsibility for environmental assessment and remediation of the former bases in the Philippines. There are other overseas bases in, for example, Canada, Germany, Italy and Japan, where in response to host-country discovery and complaints of environmental contamination, the U.S. has provided assessment and clean-up. After nearly a century of occupation of these Philippine baselands, the obligation is no less. Meanwhile, as the political resolution of this issue unfolds, thousands of Filipinos, many of whom are living in marginal refugee conditions, and drinking and bathing in water which may be contaminated with hazardous substances resulting from U.S. military activities. If these circumstances were to exist in the U.S. the groundwater would already have been comprehensively tested for a broad spectrum of substances and the public's health protected, while resulting plumes of contamination were being mapped and remediation strategies executed. Until we can answer with certainty whether or not this water is safe for consumption, an answer which neither Philippine government, public health officials, nor academicians are able to provide without assistance, and eliminate any identified hazardous exposures, the U.S. may be viewed as bearing responsibility for any resulting health effects. Amendment No. 382

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be ready to go, if I could have just 30 seconds to also say on the floor of Senate, when I say ``we,'' I don't mean as in me. I mean the collective us. This is for both Senator Levin and Senator Warner. You also, in a bipartisan way, through your efforts, were able to put an amendment into this bill that deals with family violence. I thank you. I think this is an extremely important amendment. The problem was that all too often, when a spouse usually a woman-- would report violence, there was no real right of guarantee of confidentiality, which we needed. In other words, a woman could go to a doctor and then her report to a doctor could get out publicly. This really will enable women who are the victims of this violence to be able to go to someone and receive some support and help. It is extremely important. Both of you have supported this. I think there is similar language over in the House side. I thank the two of you. This is an amendment I am really proud of. I thank you.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I have been trying to get this amendment on the floor. This is simple and straightforward. This requires the Department of Health and Human Services to provide us with a report on the status of women and children who are no longer on welfare. There are 4.5 million fewer recipients. We want to know what kinds of jobs, at what wages, do people have health care coverage. This is based on disturbing reports by Family U.S.A., Catholic Organization Network, Children's Defense Fund, Conference of Mayors and, in addition, National Conference of State Legislatures. Good public policy is good evaluation, and we ought to know what is going on in the country right now on this terribly important question that dramatically affects the lives of women and children, albeit low- income women and children. I hope to get a strong bipartisan vote. It will be a good message.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a colleague who is ready to go, Senator Specter, so I will not take much time. But I just want to make it clear to colleagues that on this vote I agreed to a time limit. I brought this amendment out to the floor. There could have been debate on the other side. Somebody could have come out here and debated me openly in public about this amendment. I am talking about exactly what is happening with this welfare bill. I am talking about good public policy evaluation. Shouldn't we at least have the information about where these women are? Where these children are? What kind of jobs? What kind of wages? Are there adequate child care arrangements? The Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal once said: ``Ignorance is never random.'' Sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know. I say to colleagues, given this vote, I am going to bring this amendment out on the next bill I get a chance to bring it out on. I am not going to agree to a time limit. I am going to force people to come out here on the majority side and debate me on this question, and we will have a full-fledged, substantive debate. We are talking about the lives of women and children, albeit they are poor, albeit they don't have the lobbyists, albeit they are not well connected. I am telling you, I am outraged that there wasn't the willingness and the courage to debate me on this amendment. We will have the debate with no time limits next bill that comes out here. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent to send three amendments to the desk and then have them temporarily laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment, as modified, be sent to the desk. I believe this has been cleared with the other side. It is technical. There were some original cosponsors, Senator Mikulski and Senator Harkin.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The amount of money originally was improperly designated. I also added two original cosponsors.

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a modified amendment. It is for $340 million a year, not $1 billion, as the Senator said. All Senators should know that. Second of all, I get a little tired of Senators talking about how much we care about kids and education, and we can't have our schools and school districts put in some money, which we will match, so we can have more support services for these kids. We gave $8 billion more for the Pentagon than the President wanted. We got money for breaks for oil companies and money for breaks for all sorts of other special interests. But all of a sudden we don't have the money to provide resources for these school districts.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I resent the accusation that this is taking up time and delaying this bill. Senator, if you were worried about at-risk kids and helping kids before they get into trouble and wind up incarcerated and committing violent crimes, then you would want to support the kind of support services we can provide in schools.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to respond to that comment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I can do it in 30 seconds.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator, I would never criticize your record. You are a friend. But I intend to respond to the remarks you made on the floor of the Senate that this kind of an amendment is taking up people's time and delaying passage of this bill. This is very relevant to what we need to do to help kids before they get into trouble. I am surprised that my colleague, with all of his good work, doesn't understand that. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask a question. We now have 1 minute each; is that right?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could we have order, please.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I also ask whether this is my amendment on school counselors?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and colleagues, I have offered this amendment with Senator Mikulski and Senator Harkin. This amendment would provide $340 million a year for 100,000 school counselors, social workers and child psychologists to back them up. Everywhere you go, you hear from people at the school district level: We will contribute money, but can you get some money to us so we can have more counselors in our school so that we can give more support to these kids before they get into trouble? You will not hear your education community and your teachers and men and women who work with children talk about anything more than the need to have more counselors. One counsel for 500 students or 1,000 students cannot identify these kids in trouble, cannot help these kids. If we really care about providing these services, then we are going to be willing to make the investment. I hope this amendment will have a very strong vote. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to ask the Senator one question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.