Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today with a little bit of sense of sadness to bring to my colleagues' attention the nomination--I guess I will add, and indignation--the nomination of James C. Hormel to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. As is the case too often up here, the nomination has been put on the shelf, held by a ``hold'' at the request of a few Senators. Before I talk about the reasons for the ``hold,'' I want to talk briefly about the history of the nomination and some facts about the nominee, Mr. Hormel, and his background. Last fall, following a hearing on his nomination, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16 to 2 in favor of Mr. Hormel. This vote took place November 4, 1997. Originally, it was a voice vote. It was approved. That means by unanimous vote. Two Senators then requested to have a recorded vote and went on record in opposition. So it was a 16-2 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is a very strong vote. The nomination was placed on the Executive Calendar. And despite the fact that the Senate confirmed every other Foreign Relations Committee nominee before the close of the first session--some 50 nominees in total--Jim Hormel's nomination was left languishing because of ``holds'' placed on it by a few Senators. Madam President, that such a distinguished and qualified nominee would face opposition is on its face hard to understand. Jim Hormel is first and foremost a loving and devoted father of five and a grandfather of 13. His entire family has been unfailingly supportive of his nomination. And people who know him well say he is decent, patient and a very gentle person. Madam President, I was very moved by a letter from Alice Turner, former wife of James Hormel, a letter written to the majority leader, Senator Lott, supporting her ex-husband's nomination. And I quote: I have known Jim for 46 years and for ten of those years I was married to him . . . I grew to understand the terrible prejudice and hatred that he knew he would have to face . . . and is facing as he goes through the difficult process this nomination and its opponents have put him through . . . I share with you these personal things because I gather his personal ethics have been questioned. If anyone on this earth could come close to judging that it would be me. He is a wonderful father, grandfather and friend . . . Jim Hormel has given enormously to his family, his community and to this country. He is just asking to be allowed to give one more time. This is a good man. Give him a chance. End of quote to Senator Lott. His professional credentials are equally impressive. He is an accomplished businessman. He serves as chairman of Equidex, an investment firm, and he serves as a member of the board of directors of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. He has also spent time as a lawyer and as an educator. He served as a dean and assistant dean of students at the University of Chicago Law School. In addition, he currently serves as a member of the board of members of his alma mater, Swarthmore College. Let me just give my colleagues a sampling of the kind of organizations he served on, impressive in its breadth as well as its diversity. In addition to his support for Swarthmore and the University of Chicago, he has provided resources and assistance to the Virginia Institute of Autism, Breast Cancer Action, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, the American Indian College Fund, the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, the Institute for International Education, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Catholic Youth Organization, Jewish Family and Child Services, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the San Francisco Public Library, the San Francisco Ballet, and the San Francisco Symphony. Many of these organizations have honored him with awards. His commitment to public service and his commitment to the cause of human rights came together when he was named as a member of the United States delegation to the 51st U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva in 1995. And there he helped the United States press its case for improved human rights in nations as diverse as China, Cuba, and Iraq. Finally, he was nominated in 1977 to serve as an alternative representative on the U.S. delegation to the 51st General Assembly. There is an irony because on May 23, 1997, the same U.S. Senate that opposes his nomination, not letting us have a vote, unanimously confirmed James Hormel to represent this country at the United Nations. Madam President, it seems clear to many of us why some Senators do not want to allow a vote on James Hormel's nomination. It is because James Hormel is gay. In a queer, unquestionable case of discrimination, these Senators refuse to let the full Senate vote on a qualified nominee because of his sexual orientation. Surely, the U.S. Senate does not want to be party to this kind of discrimination. James Hormel is exactly the kind of person who should be encouraged to engage in public service. He is intelligent, civic-minded, generous, and he is a person of proven accomplishment who wants to serve our country. We need people like him in public service. We cannot afford to drive him away because of his sexual orientation. So, Madam President, this is a matter of simple fairness. We have before us a qualified nominee, with broad support, approved by the committee of jurisdiction. We should at least be allowed a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. If people have concerns, let them express them. Let us have a debate, and let us address them, but let us give James Hormel a chance. Let us have a vote. So I call on the majority leader to schedule a vote on James Hormel's nomination. I call upon those who have a hold to allow the nomination to reach the floor. If other Senators wish, let us debate the qualifications. But it is wrong to prevent the Senate from having an up-or-down vote on this nomination. Some of the Senators who have holds on this nomination claim that it is not because he is gay. They claim it is because of his views on certain issues involving gay rights or something to that effect. The truth is, I do not know exactly what their objections are. But there is a more important truth. If Senators disagree with this nomination, let them come to the floor. Let us debate this out in the open. That is what the tradition of the U.S. Senate about deliberative action is all about. So I challenge my colleagues who have holds on this nomination to come to this very floor, explain why they believe James Hormel is unfit to become an American Ambassador because he happens to be gay. Let other Senators and the American people judge on the merits of this argument. The issue is a very simple one. We have a qualified nominee who was resoundingly approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is entitled to a vote. And as a United States Senator, I am entitled to cast my vote for him. Madam President, I have language which would be a sense of the Senate to express the intention of the Senate to consider the nomination of James Hormel as United States Ambassador to Luxembourg, that the Senate would make clear its intention to consider this nomination before a certain date and to vote. I will not bring this amendment up on this bill. But this is an amendment that I will bring to the floor of the U.S. Senate on another bill. It is time for us to speak up. It is time for us to deal with what is an injustice. Mr. President, I will work with my colleagues from California, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. And I will work with other colleagues as well. Let me just conclude by reading on this matter--and I say to my colleague from Arkansas, I have just one other matter in morning business to cover, and I shall be brief--from the Fort Worth Star- Telegram, ``Senate Should Be Allowed To Vote.'' In an editorial calling for Republicans to let the Senate vote on James Hormel, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram writes: Conservatives, like Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon and Orrin Hatch of Utah take him at his word and support his nomination. Some others, harking to conservative groups that are part of the GOP constituency, do not. Yet they say the issue is not his sexual orientation. If it is not, then the Senate should be allowed to vote, yea or nay. If sexual orientation actually is the issue, then the Senate needs to take a look at itself in the mirror. I repeat that. ``If sexual orientation actually is the issue''--I say this to the majority leader. I call on the majority leader to bring this matter before the Senate for a vote. I quote the Fort Worth Star- Telegram, the conclusion: If sexual orientation actually is the issue, then the Senate needs to take a look at itself in the mirror. We will not know until we have this nomination out on the floor. And we must do that. I hope the majority leader will take action. I have an amendment that I will bring to the floor if that is what is necessary. I think it is time for all of us to speak up. Madam President, I just have one other matter that I want to cover in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, let me just say to the authors of this legislation, and I thank them for their fine support, I will have one amendment that is terribly important to my State of Minnesota. Last year, we were hit by floods that had a devastating effect on our community. I think people all over the country know about Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and other communities. Last year, we said to people who were struggling because of what happened that we would extend the time for them to file their tax returns, and when they had to pay their taxes. We also were willing to forgive them on the interest they would have to pay for late filing and late payment. This time around, this past year, just a few months ago, we were hit with tornadoes that were just devastating to communities like Saint Peter and Le Center and a number of other different communities. I could list many. What we have now in the bill is the assurance from last year that Minnesotans who have been hit by tornadoes, communities that have been hit by tornadoes, can again extend the filing of their tax return and when they make their payments, but we don't have any provision that would allow them forgiveness on the interest. I will have an amendment that will give them forgiveness on the interest payment. It will be a huge help to people who have really been through it, colleagues. I think there will be strong support for this. What I will essentially say in this amendment, for the next year what we will do is for all citizens across the country, including Minnesotans who have been hit with these disasters, that they will, No. 1, have an extension again on the filing and payment of tax; and for those that have been personally affected--not everyone, because the cost runs up--but for those personally affected, they will again be forgiven the interest on this payment. It is not a huge expenditure. We will have an offset. I say to colleagues it is terribly important to a lot of people in Minnesota and I think a lot of people around the country. I hope this amendment will be approved. I think other colleagues will come to the floor with similar amendments. We can do this together, Democrats and Republicans, Republicans and Democrats. I am trying to make sure we get help to people.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Nebraska. He has really led the way on this issue. He is well known for his outspokenness as a Senator, and he has been outspoken on this question long before the rest of us. I think we will pass this bill this week. I think it will be a very strong, bipartisan effort. Senator Kerrey mentioned Senator Grassley and Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan, but on any one piece of legislation or any one issue, at least it is my view as a Senator, you need a Senator who is a catalyst, you need someone who is out there ahead of other people, who is willing to be very outspoken and push very hard. The Senator from Nebraska has done just that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am in the Chamber now, and I wanted to make it clear to the Senator that I am learning a lot as I hear him go through the bill, and I hope the Senator will take his time in explaining the provisions. This is an important piece of legislation, and I just want to make that clear out of courtesy. Please go forward with the arguments. I am learning in the Chamber.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are about to pass what may be one of the most significant and positive pieces of legislation to be enacted into law this Congress--S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. It is the outcome of an open, cooperative and bipartisan process beginning with a number of hearings on the subject last year in our Labor Subcommittee on Employment and Training. As soon as possible, following passage here, I hope we can proceed to a conference with members of the House and reconcile the differences between this bill and the one which that body passed last year. Some of those differences are substantial, but most are not fundamental. This major re-write of job training and workforce development law is vitally needed. If we can keep a conference bill close in most respects to this Senate bill, it will, upon enactment, represent an important step forward for the country's economy, workers and businesses. I agree with President Clinton's statement regarding this Senate bill, contained in a letter he wrote recently to the Majority Leader. The President correctly observed that the bill is ``essential to widening the circle of opportunity for more Americans and keeping our economy growing steady and strong.'' I would like to commend the Chairman of the full Committee, Senator Jeffords, as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, Senator DeWine, for their leadership on the bill. Senator DeWine in particular has been tireless in pushing the process forward to make this bill happen. I commend my colleague for his work, as well as that of his staff. Likewise, I thank my friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the full Labor Committee, Senator Kennedy, as well as his staff, for their work on this bill. It has been a formidable amount of labor. Department of Labor officials and staff also have provided an enormous amount of technical assistance. We appreciate their dedication. Arriving at this point has required compromise. As is usually the case with a bill of this magnitude, no senator or group with an interest in this key area of federal policy is likely to call our bill perfect. But the wide array of organizations and associations who support it are testimony to the fact that we have engaged in a very democratic process. We have endorsements of the bill from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Private Industry Councils, the Society for Human Resource Management, the National Alliance of Business, the Business Round Table, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Job Corps Coalition, the American Vocational Association, the American Association of Community Colleges, and the National Association of State Directors of Vocational Technical Education, to name a few. It is a good bill, with widespread support. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act will fundamentally improve our federal system of job training. It incorporates adult and vocational education without threatening those programs' separate funding streams. With the inclusion of Senator DeWine's amendment, it will also include reauthorization and improvement of vocational rehabilitation programs, again without threatening separate funding for vocational rehabilitation programs. The bill will help coordinate, streamline and decentralize our federal job training system. At the same time, it will make that system more accountable to real performance measures. It gives private sector employers--the people who have jobs to offer and who need workers with the right skills--a greater role in directing policy at the state and local level, which is where most decision-making power resides in this bill. S. 1186 will move the whole country to where Minnesota and a number of other states have already moved decisively: to a system of One-Stop service centers where people can get all the information they need in one location. It will replace currently over-bureaucratized systems in many states and localities with systems driven more by the needs of those who utilize them. Adults seeking training will receive Individual Training Accounts to give them direct control over their own careers. High quality labor market information will be accessible through the One-Stops, and training providers will be required to report publicly on their performance. Men and women will have the ability to make their own choices based on the best information about which profession they should pursue, about the skills and training they'll need, and about the best place to get those skills and that training. I have visited Minnesota One-Stops. They work. I would like to commend the Minnesota Department of Economic Security, by the way, which is the agency responsible for job training in my state. Commissioner R. Jane Brown and her staff do excellent and important work. I appreciate the cooperation we have received from them throughout the legislative process on this bill. The bill targets resources from the federal level to those who need them. It assures separate funding to adults, to youth, and to dislocated workers according to state formulae, and also according to formulae within states. There was no attempt this time to do away with NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance or to threaten other important dislocated worker assistance.There was no effort to drastically reduce funding for job training systems based on hoped-for savings from consolidation of programs. That is crucial. This bill does not overreach. It does not block-grant job training, adult education and vocational education progams. It retains crucial federal priorities, then allows state and local authorities to decide how best to address their needs. For example, even when our economy is performing generally well, as it currently is, many workers will lose their jobs due to forces beyond their control, due to economic change. We cannot abandon Americans who can and want to be productive. We need to respond quickly to plant closings and mass layoffs with job search assistance and retraining for new jobs. The current dislocated worker program serves about half a million dislocated American workers a year. It usually succeeds in training displaced workers for new jobs--jobs which provide over 90 percent of their previous wages. It is even more true that many youth, especially in poor urban and rural areas, are being left behind by our prosperity. Many have dropped out or are at risk of dropping out of school. This harms us all. We lose productivity. We lose revenue. Most importantly, we lose the potential of our young people. The bill's Out-of-School Youth initiative is extremely important. It targets funds directly to youth in high-poverty urban and rural areas. It concentrates its resources to help bring fundamental change to the neighborhoods it will serve. It emphasizes work and private sector employment. And it is already paid for. Congress provided a $250 million advance appropriation for the initiative last year, contingent upon enactment of this bill. One of the principles we had in mind as we drafted the bill is the following: we wanted the money and the decision-making power to go down to the local level. We wanted this to be a decentralized system. The bill achieves that. The governors have a strong role in this system, as they should. Governors write their state plans. They name the statewide workforce partnership. They receive the money on a formula basis. They administer the programs statewide. They have a good deal of flexibility. But the local level is just as important. This bill represents a crucial step forward in that respect. Money and decision-making power flow down to the local level. The bill includes an in-state formula funding mechanism. Local workforce boards selected by local government leaders will make policy at the local level. Local business people, local elected officials and local citizens are in the best position to know local workforce needs. We received important assistance in drafting the bill from national organizations representing different levels of government--the governors, mayors, state and local elected officials, as well as counties. Our job training system requires coordination and cooperation among all levels of goverment. The ``governance coalition'' that provided key advice for us played a vitally helpful role. The Federal Government is providing a lot of money for this system. What we ask is that it be spent according to certain priorities. We believe we are correct to establish priorities--a stream of money for adults, a stream for dislocated workers, a stream for youth. And we ask that reasonable performance objectives are met. That is another key feature of the bill. We require measurable results. For too many years appropriators have correctly asked us, ``how do we know whether the programs are delivering any benefits?'' It is appropriate to require measurable results. The bill requires states and local workforce boards to establish and meet measurable standards for success in placement of trainees in jobs related to the training they received, in wages that trainees receive over 6-month and 12-month periods, and other relevant measures. In addition to programs for adults, youth and dislocated workers, the job training title of the bill also contains renewal of four important ``national'' job training programs. These are programs currently authorized by the Job Training Partnership Act and operated on a national basis by the Department of Labor, rather than through the job training infrastructures of the 50 states. One of these is the Job Corps program. The Hubert H. Humphrey Job Corps Center in St. Paul is one of the best-performing Job Corps centers in the nation. Last year we had Ralph DiBattista, former director of that center, as well as Dave McKenzie, the current director, at our Subcommittee hearing on youth training. They were joined that day by Susan Lees, a very impressive young trainee at the Humphrey Center, at that time on her way to becoming an auto technician at a Ford dealership. The Job Corps and other federal employment training programs for the nation's youth represent a crucial and cost-effective investment. Providing opportunities to youth, especially at-risk youth, is absolutely necessary. Training allows youth to gain the skills they need to be productive, to make the most of their abilities, and ultimately to support themselves and become fully contributing citizens in our economy and society. The bill also renews current national Native American programs, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs, and Veterans programs. These are key elements of the country's system of helping to ensure that those Americans who need and qualify for training in order to be the most productive workers they can be get the best and most cost- effective services that the federal government can provide. I am pleased we were able to make some improvements in the job training programs in the bill with respect to veterans. As a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I wanted to be sure that veterans job training programs would serve today's veterans. Therefore we updated the program's eligibility provision to ensure that Gulf War veterans and other veterans with significant barriers to employment, including homeless veterans, will be served. The managers' amendment also makes an improvement for veterans in the bill's state plan section. It will require that Governors, as they write and implement their state plans, provide reasonable assurances that veterans will receive services on a fair basis in state-administered programs. I also am pleased we were able to include in the bill provisions to continue the authorization and operation of four rural Concentrated Employment Programs (CEPs). These CEPs currently operate in Minnesota, Kentucky, Montana and Wisconsin. Congress established CEPs in 1964 as part of the War on Poverty's Economic Opportunity Act. With the creation of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program, Senator Humphrey and Congressman Perkins acted to continue an authorization for the four CEPS I mentioned. When the Job Training Partnership Act was passed in 1983, they were continued again. The CEPs do an excellent job serving difficult, high-unemployment rural areas. I intend to work hard if necessary to retain this provision in conference, although I anticipate no opposition. There are five amendments to the bill which we have agreed to accept. The first of these is by Mr. DeWine. It is the vocational rehabilitation bill. The Rehabilitation Act assists well over a million Americans with disabilities annually through comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services. It is a crucial and successful set of programs. It embodies the commitment of the federal government and the American public to those among us with physical and mental disabilities. I am very satisfied with this set of improvements to that Act. Jay Johnson of East Grand Forks, Minnesota testified on behalf of the National Council on Independent Living at a Subcommittee hearing last year. Mr. Johnson is executive director of ``Options,'' a center for independent living in East Grand Forks. I am very proud of the disability community in Minnesota for their advocacy and for their determination. I think this bill does right by them. The amendment by Mr. Lautenberg gives units of local government which are currently service delivery areas under the Job Training Partnership Act and which have population of 200,000 or more an automatic right to appeal to the Secretary of Labor a decision by a Governor not to continue that area as an SDA. Without the amendment the bill would give units of local government with a population of 500,000 or more automatic certification to continue as SDAs, whereas those with 200,000 or more would be entitled only to an automatic right to request continuance as SDAs. I consider the amendment by the senator from New Jersey to be an improvement to the bill, and I intend to support it in conference, as well. I do not support either of the amendments offered by my friend from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft. We are accepting them for now, but I hope they can be modified or removed in conference. The first would require that job training service recipients be drug tested. It is bad policy. It is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It is wrong because it sends a distasteful message about a presumption regarding Americans who benefit from improving their skills through job training--a presumption which I hope none of us really holds. And it would drain large amounts of money from the program, money which should go to training. The second Ashcroft amendment also is objectionable. It prohibits funds authorized in the bill from funding activities authorized in the School to Work Act. Our bill does not authorize making grants under the School to Work Act. But we encourage states and localities to integrate and coordinate their vocational education and job training systems. Of course we want to facilitate lifelong learning and the continual development of productive skills. School to Work Programs have been a great success. They take a new approach to learning. They are programs which operate on the idea that a young person learns best when he or she can apply school-learning to life situations. In March of 1996, I invited a School to Work student to Washington to tell his story. Cameron Dick was a student at the American Indian Opportunity Industrial Center, one of nine schools in the Phillips area of Minneapolis. Phillips is predominantly poor and has one of the highest concentrations of Native Americans among urban centers in the United States. The American Indian OIC is in its fourth year of a 5-year Urban Opportunity Grant for its School to Work program. It works with high school dropouts who have decided to give high school another shot by both educating and training them for jobs. The idea is to ``Get a diploma and get a paycheck.'' Cameron was a high school dropout, but through the OIC program became an A student, participated in afternoon employment programs and tutored other young people. The programs work. Mr. President, I believe this Congress will succeed where we did not during the last Congress. I am very hopeful that following passage of this bill we can reach an acceptable conference agreement with the House and that we can then send major, important legislation to the President for his signature.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure working with my colleague from OHIO on this bill. I appreciate his extremely hard work. I would like to confirm my understanding of a provision of the bill and ensure it is the same as the understanding of my colleague. For purposes of programs authorized under Title III of the bill, that is, the Workforce Investment Activities title, housing is considered to be an eligible supportive service. That is specified in the bill's definition section. In Section 362 of Title III, the section dealing with migrant and seasonal farmworker programs, a range of workforce investment activities are authorized, including employment and training assistance. The section then also authorizes further related assistance for eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers, including supportive services. For a number of years, the Labor Department has provided funding to a small number of single purpose grantees which provide an essential supportive service to farmworkers: improving their housing conditions. As S. 1186 defines supportive services to include housing and includes supportive services as eligible workforce investment related assistance for farmworkers, it seems clear to me that the bill would allow the Secretary to continue to make grants for farmworker housing.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would fully expect the Department to give all due consideration to a proposal from an institution and chairman with such impressive credentials and expertise.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I agree with my friend's reading of section 367. Its demonstration and pilot project section clearly is meant to encourage projects to help develop and implement techniques, approaches and methods such as those the Senator informs us are contained in the proposal from his state for an engineering and training center. I would also certainly think that local private funding of 50 percent would qualify as ``a substantial portion.''

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me associate myself with the amendment earlier introduced by Senator Moynihan from New York. I have said before on the floor of the Senate--and I will say it again--the Senator from New York, I think, has said something very important with his amendment, which is that we should be using our prestige as a great country to really insist on membership to the EU for Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland. That is what is most important to enable them to reach their goals. Also, let me associate myself with the amendment of my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. I think what he is saying in this amendment is: Colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, please go slowly. Mr. President, many of us had the opportunity to serve with Senator Nunn. I think more of us should talk about him and his wisdom. Senator Nunn raised three questions about NATO expansion. The first question is: Will this help us in easing or dealing with the whole problem of proliferation of weapons that might go to Third World countries--the kind of cooperation we need with Russia? The answer that Senator Nunn gives to that question is no. The second question Senator Nunn asked is: What about nuclear threats? Is this going to help us in terms of further arms agreement with Russia? Is this going to move the world away from reliance on nuclear weapons? The answer Senator Nunn gives is no. The third question that Senator Nunn raised is: What about reform within Russia? What about the forces for democracy? What are the democrats--with a small ``d''--all trying to tell us? The answer, Senator Nunn says, is they are telling us with this NATO expansion, expanding the military alliance against a Soviet Union that no longer exists, against a military threat that no longer exists, is a huge step backward. Mr. President, I will conclude this way. Other colleagues are on the floor and want to speak. From Senator Sam Nunn to Senator Patrick Moynihan, to Senator John Warner, to George Kennan, to scholars like Howard Mendelbaum, to prophetic thinkers like George Kennan, and, more importantly, the forces for democracy in Russia, there has been an eloquent and powerful plea to all of us to understand that this could be a tragic mistake. Mr. President, I fear it will be a tragic mistake. I hope my colleagues will vote for Senator Moynihan's amendment. I hope they will vote for Senator Warner's amendments. I want to say one more time that I am in profound disagreement with NATO expansion. I think there will be fateful consequences. If we approve this, I hope and pray that I am wrong, but I have to speak for what I believe is right for my country and the world. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in the 2 minutes I have remaining, I just want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that wonderful bishop in Guatemala, Juan Gerardi--a man of justice--who was assassinated on Sunday. He was the director and founder of the Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese of Guatemala. It has been absolutely devastating to the forces for democracy in Guatemala and to the forces for human rights. On the floor of the Senate today, I just want to say that I believe, as a Senator, that our Government should make it crystal clear to the Government in Guatemala that we want a full accounting. I urge the U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala to ask the Guatemalan government to swiftly investigate this crime; it is a terrible setback to the effort to shine a light into the dark corners of our hemisphere's history. What we know so far is that on Sunday, April 26, Bishop Gerardi was assaulted and killed as he entered his home. His attacker, whose identity is unknown, smashed the Bishop's head with such brutality that his features were obliterated and his body could only be identified by his ring. Nothing was stolen from Bishop Gerardi's body or his house, nor was his car stolen. When you have a courageous Catholic bishop who has been such a strong advocate for human rights murdered, we need to know--the people in Guatemala need to know--what happened. There needs to be accountability. Mr. President, this vicious crime is all the more terrible because of the context in which it occurred. On Friday, Bishop Gerardi had released the Archdiocese's report on past human rights violations in Guatemala entitled ``Guatemala: Never Again.'' He directed the Catholic Church's effort to gather information on the long, tragic history of massacres, killings, and torture in that country. These efforts are an important part of the people of Guatemala's efforts to come to terms with their past, through a full and accurate accounting of past human rights abuses. I do not prejudge this. I do not know who committed this brutal assassination. But like the Catholic Church in our country and like people all across the world who care so much about democracy and human rights, as a Senator, I do call on the Government of Guatemala to launch an immediate investigation into the murder of Bishop Gerardi, and to make sure that they bring this to closure and we find out who was responsible for this barbaric act. Whether or not this was a crime against a man who was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time or a carefully calculated attack against the Bishop and his work, the truth must be brought to light. Adding another mystery to the labyrinth of deaths, disappearances, and shattered lives in Guatemala would compound the tragedy of the loss of one of Latin America's great human rights leaders. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement from the Human Rights Office of the Archbishop of Guatemala, as well as a copy of my letter to the U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, be printed in the Record. I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. Hartung wrote: Potential new members of NATO are the largest recipients of subsidized military loans from the U.S. Government: Allocations for potential NATO members now dominate the Pentagon's FMF loan program, representing 44.8 percent of the $540.1 million in FMF loans for fiscal year 1997 and 61.2 percent of the $647.5 million for fiscal year 1998. NATO expansion is good news for Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but is a potential disaster for U.S. taxpayers: Lockheed Martin has been promising ``100 percent economic cooperation and up to 100 percent financing'' for countries that buy F-16 fighters. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Textron all have deals in the works to produce U.S.-designed weapons in East and Central Europe as an inducement to get officials there to ``buy American''. . .The questionable terms on U.S. military loans to the region could leave U.S. taxpayers to pick up the tab for hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in potential defaults. The likely result of all this furious marketing activity would be a U.S.-subsidized re-arming of East and Central Europe that will fatten the bottom line of U.S. weapon makers at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Mr. President, if Mr. Hartung is right, and I think there is a good chance he is, NATO expansion will be a double whammy for U.S. taxpayers. They will wind up subsidizing U.S. arms merchants in a venture that will bring them less, not more, security. I now want to mention Senator Nunn, who I join in opposing NATO expansion. He deserves a great deal of credit for being the first Senator, to my knowledge, to raise fundamental questions about the wisdom of NATO expansion. Because of my enormous respect for Senator Nunn's knowledge of national security and defense issues, his concerns about NATO expansion influenced my own thinking. Senator Nunn delivered one of the most incisive statements I have ever heard on the issue when he appeared on the Jim Lehrer Newshour show in March of 1997. He addressed both the possible impact of NATO expansion on our national security and on Russia domestically. Here is what Senator Sam Nunn had to say: I'll start with the question, what are the greatest threats to the United States? Clearly, the No. 1 threat to the United States today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether chemical or biological or nuclear. I agree with Senator Nunn, that should be the foundation of our foreign policy, our No. 1 concern. Then my question would be: Does NATO expansion help in the fight against proliferation of these weapons going to the third world rogue countries or terrorist groups? And my answer to that is no, it makes the cooperation that we have underway with Russia more difficult, perhaps not impossible, but more difficult. The second question I ask is about nuclear threats. Does NATO expansion help us in terms of easing the nuclear trigger, while Russia still has thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons, or is it harmful? And I think the answer to that is it makes it more difficult because it puts enormous pressure on the Russian military. They're extremely weak, conventionally now. They're not a threat to countries we're taking in, but their reaction is likely to be a reliance, a heavy reliance on nuclear weapons. So the answer that I have to both of those key questions relating to the threat is that it makes it--NATO expansion makes our security problems more difficult. The third question is the question of Russia itself. The greatest change we've had in the threat to the United States has been the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and movement towards democracy and market reform in Russia. That has a long way to go. But the question I ask, is NATO expansion going to make reform more likely in Russia or less likely? I think it makes it more difficult because it puts pressure on our friends, the democrats in Russia, and it gives a great political issue to the demagogues there and the people on the extreme left and the extreme right. I think my colleague, Senator Nunn, is absolutely right. It works at cross-purposes to stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I think it makes the nuclear threat more real, as Senator Nunn suggested, and it absolutely plays into the hands of the worst forces in Russia and to the disadvantage of democrats in Russia. Mr. President, the push for a larger NATO has already hurt our relations with Russia, as shown by the stalling of the START II agreements in the Duma, troubling frictions with Russia recently on issues ranging from U.S. policy toward Iraq, to proliferation issues, to the management of Russia's nuclear material. My colleague, Senator Moynihan, has had a distinguished career in diplomacy and international relations, and he was recently quoted as warning that extending the NATO alliance toward the frontier of Russia risks ``the catastrophe of nuclear war.'' I cannot honestly say whether I think his analysis is right or wrong, but I have to ask myself is there any compelling reason for the U.S. rush to expand NATO if there is the slightest chance that it could trigger a nuclear war down the road. Why are we taking such a chance? Dr. Arbatov, while in Washington last month to attend meetings at the Center for Political and Strategic Studies, took issue with those in the West who contend that Russians don't really care about NATO expansion. The following is a summary from his remarks that Arbatov approved: Contrary to what is being said by many Western proponents of NATO, Russians do care about NATO expansion, and they are almost unanimously opposed. It is true that most Russians, like most Americans, are primarily concerned about everyday things and making ends meet. But almost everyone who has any interest in foreign affairs is very concerned. Millions of pensioners who remember World War II, all the military, workers in defense industries, intellectuals, government and political elites care very deeply about this issue. And nearly the full spectrum of Russian politicians is opposed to the expansion of NATO. I want to conclude this way. Susan Eisenhower points out that not only are Russia's progressive forces being put under enormous pressure by NATO expansion, but there are signs Russian conservatives are already using it to their own advantage. Eisenhower stresses: There is already tangible evidence that NATO expansion has given conservative forces-- Which has a different meaning, I say to my conservative colleagues here, than conservativism in America. a platform. On January 23, the Duma overwhelmingly passed a resolution stating that NATO expansion is the ``most serious military threat to our country since 1945.'' It also said that Baltic membership in NATO would be incompatible with the NATO-Russian Founding Act . . . The resolution requested that the Yeltsin government devise a program to counteract NATO expansion. In pursuing NATO expansion, why is the administration disregarding the warnings of Russian democrats, George Kennan and other distinguished Russian scholars, that NATO expansion is likely to sow the seeds for the reemergence of antidemocratic and chauvinist trends in Russia? That is a serious threat, I say to my colleagues, to our lives, our children's lives, and our grandchildren's lives. I am especially puzzled by this since it must be evident to both supporters and foes of NATO expansion that European security and stability is greatly dependent on Russia's transition to democracy. A democratic Russia is unlikely to ever threaten its neighbors. Why then are we considering a step that will weaken Russia's democrats and strengthen ultra-nationalists who oppose democracy? George Kennan has said--George Kennan who wrote the famous Mr. X article in Foreign Affairs; George Kennan, perhaps the most prominent thinker about Russia in our country--George Kennan with the most distinguished career possible has said that expanding NATO ``may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion [and] to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy. * * *'' Let me repeat that quote. George Kennan has said that expanding NATO ``may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion [and] to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy * * *'' I urge my colleagues to carefully consider George Kennan's wise words, the heartfelt words of Russian democrats, and the prophetic words of Senator Sam Nunn and join me in opposing ratification of NATO expansion. Mr. President, I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the administration often claims its aim in expanding NATO is to foster democracy, stability, and economic reform in Central Europe. But there already is democracy, stability and economic reform in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Besides, if this was our aim wouldn't the European Union, whose fundamental purpose is to spur growth and stability through integration, be a better vehicle for accomplishing these goals than NATO, which is after all a military alliance? If our goal is to expand markets and democracy, why don't we use our leverage to promote the expansion of the European Union? Central European states covet membership in the European Union for the economic benefits they believe it would confer. Wouldn't it be better for the United States to exert our leadership, our great influence, to promote expansion of the European Union which threatens no one rather than expand a military alliance that threatens the one country on which European security depends most? What worries me most though, Mr. President, is that NATO expansion, needlessly risks poisoning Russia's relations with the U.S. for years to come and increases the odds that Russian ultra-nationalists and anti-U.S. forces will gain power in the post-Yeltsin Period. NATO expansion threatens to turn the clock back to the worst days of the Cold War, something that few Americans and few Europeans want. Former Russian officials say and some former American officials confirm that by seeking to expand NATO, the U.S. is violating a commitment made when Moscow agreed to Germany's reunification and remaining in NATO, withdrawing Russian troops from Germany, and disbanding the Warsaw Pact. While there is some disagreement over what commitment was actually made to Gorbachev, there is no question that Russian officials say they had firm U.S. assurances that NATO would not be expanded. The Russian perception that we are reneging on our word can only erode trust and poison future relations. On this point, I will quote Susan Eisenhower, Chairman, The Center for Political and Strategic Studies, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 19, 1998: It is Russian democrats who feel betrayed by NATO expansion--not the hard liners who are benefitting from it. Gorbachev says that we were verbally assured that NATO would not expand if the Soviet Union agreed to German unification and its place in NATO. Under the war-time Four Powers Act, Moscow had a legal right to refuse such an arrangement, and would have if the Soviets had imagined that less than a decade later some and eventually all of their former allies would be gazing at them from the other side of a military alliance. Russian hard liners, always deeply skeptical of Western intentions, say this ``betrayal'' is par for the course, and they mock the Russian democrats for trusting the West too much. Eisenhower, who met Gorbachev on a recent trip to Moscow, reported that Gorbachev was deeply disturbed by NATO Expansion's impact on those who promoted cooperation with the West, adding: ``Russia has been swindled,'' he asserted, and it is feeding into the wild ideas of those who hold ``conspiracy theories'' that the West is intent not only on the Soviet Union's demise but also Russia's. ``NATO expansion has poisoned the atmosphere of trust,'' he said. Mr. President, it is worth pointing out that the sense of betrayal isn't confined to former President Gorbachev, but is shared by our natural allies in today's Russia, political leaders who are committed both to democracy and U.S.-Russia cooperation. For example, there is Dr. Alexei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Defense Committee of the Duma. Dr. Arbatov is a member of the leadership of Yabloko, Russia's largest unimpeachably democratic party, a strong advocate of U.S.- Russia cooperation, and a leader in the effort to ratify the START-II Treaty in the Duma. He was involved in the START-I negotiations in Geneva, and later served as a consultant on all the major Soviet- American and Russian-American arms control issues, including the START- II and CFE treaties. Here are Dr. Arbatov's thoughts on NATO expansion in light of Russia's agreement to German reunification and other concessions: . . . Nobody took the trouble to warn Russian that as a result of all these concessions and sacrifices, NATO--the most powerful military alliance in the world--would start moving towards Russian borders. To the contrary, Moscow was repeatedly told by the West that it would be accepted as an equal and genuine partner and that no major decision on international security would be made without it. Well the NATO summit in Madrid came as a clear manifestation that such decisions may and will be made and Russia's opinion really matters only so long as it is in line with the Western position . . . At best, NATO expansion to the East is regarded in Russia as a mistaken policy. . . . At worst it is regarded as the consummation of a `grand design' to encircle and isolate Russia, establishing strategic superiority and finally destroying Russia, ending once and for all Russia's role as a European power. If this is how a democrat and advocate of U.S.-Russian amity sees it, imagine how more conservative, more nationalist forces who could come to power in the future see it. Mr. President, am I missing something? Is there some compelling, over-riding reason that makes NATO expansion so vital to U.S. interests that we must imperil our relations with Russia for years to come and revive Russian mistrust and paranoia? If this is so, I would appreciate it if one of my colleagues or the Administration could tell me, and more important the American people, what that compelling, over-riding reason is. There is no question in my mind that colleagues who support NATO expansion do so because they believe it would be in the interests of the United States and think it would be the right thing to do. I question no colleage on that. But I am troubled by the fact that U.S. arms makers have played a major role in lobbying for NATO expansion. And this lobbying has been confined just to the United States. As difficult as it may be to believe, McDonnell Douglas helped the Hungarian Government win public support in a referendum on joining NATO by financing a CD-ROM game called ``Natopoly'' that was distributed free to libraries throughout Hungary. The Washington Post described it as a ``piece of slick, unabashedly pro-NATO software.'' Mr. President, U.S. arms makers seem to equate expanding NATO with expanding profits. To explain what I mean, let me quote from a June 29, 1997 New York Times article entitled, ``Arms Makers See Bonanza in Selling NATO Expansion'': At night, Bruce L. Jackson is president of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, giving intimate dinners for Senators and foreign officials. By day, he is director of strategic planning for Lockheed Martin Corporation. Mr. Jackson says he keeps his two identities separate, but his company and his lobbying group are fighting the same battle. Defense contractors are acting like globe-hopping diplomats to encourage the expansion of NATO, which will create a huge market for their wares. . . . ``The stakes are high'' for arms makers, said Joel L. Johnson, vice president for international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association. . . . ``Whoever gets in first will have a lock for the next quarter century.'' The potential market for jets alone is $10 billion, he said. . . . ``Then there's transport aircraft, utility helicopters, attack helicopters,'' Mr. Johnson said--not to mention military communications systems, computers, radar, radios, and other tools of a modern fighting force. ``Add these together, and we're talking real money,'' he said. And the real ``real money'' he's talking about is more likely to come from the U.S. taxpayers than from new NATO members. In fact, it appears as if funds are already coming from the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize arms purchases by potential NATO members. Let me also draw from a study by William D. Hartung, the author of the report which is entitled Welfare for Weapons Dealers 1998: The Hidden Costs of NATO Expansion. I will read the summary of his key findings. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to NATO expansion. NATO expansion has been described by the distinguished foreign policy expert, Professor Ronald Steel, ``as a bad idea whose time has come.'' My fervent hope is that he's only half right in that it will turn out to be ``a bad idea whose time hasn't come.'' Why do I oppose the expansion of NATO? Two fundamental reasons. First because I've yet to hear a plausible case made for expanding NATO, which makes me think we are talking about a policy still in search of a justification. And second, because I believe it will sour our relations with Russia, promote internal changes within Russia harmful to U.S. interests, and may even imperil our own security and that of our allies. Since the two basic reasons for my opposition tend to be intertwined, I'll deal with them together rather than separately. Mr. President, I've yet to hear an explanation of why we should be expanding the NATO miliary alliance toward Russia's borders when there is no Russian military threat. The Russian military has collapsed. If there was any doubt about this, it should have been erased by the Russian army's inability to quell tiny, rag-tag Chechnyan forces. Even Polish sources have questioned Russia's capability to threaten its former Eastern Bloc allies in the foreseeable future. Moreover, arms control agreements signed between 1987 and 1993, pushed through by Presidents Reagan and Bush working with President Gorbachev, have helped to establish a new security structure that makes a surprise attack in Central Europe virtually impossible. The security situation in Central Europe is more stable than it has been at any time in this century. There is peace between states in Europe for the first time in centuries. Under these circumstances, why in heaven's name are we rushing to expand a military alliance into Central Europe? Secretary Albright has claimed that expanding NATO will produce an ``undivided'' Europe. I believe the Secretary is mistaken. What it will do is re-create a dividing line in Europe, only farther east than the original Cold War dividing line. President Clinton himself, before he decided to back NATO expansion, said that it would ``draw a new line through Europe, just a little farther east.'' He was right then and I am right now. Mr. President, since a Europe without dividing lines is vital if the continent is to be peaceful, prosperous and secure, why are we now considering a step that is sure to re-divide Europe? What would a re-divided Europe mean? Well, for one thing, the U.S. is committed to bringing the Baltic states into NATO if expansion proceeds. In my view this could have devastating consequences for world peace. In this connection, I recently read an outstanding piece entitled ``NATO Expansion and the Baltic Iceberg'' by Michael Mandelbaum, Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University and Director of the Project on East-West Relations of the Council on Foreign Relations. I have had the good fortune to meet with Professor Mandelbaum and I found him to be a perceptive critic of NATO expansion who views the issue through the lens of history. He succinctly describes the dilemma that would be created by the commitment to expanding NATO to the Baltic states. Professor Mandelbaum outlines three options: . . . the American government might try to expand NATO to the Baltic countries but fail because of Western European objections. . . . If on the other hand Washington did somehow prevail on the Western Europeans to admit the Balts, or failing that, offered them a unilateral alliance like the Japanese-American Security Treaty, the United States would be obliged to provide for their defense. This option surely require re-creating in some form the military deployments of the Cold War. American troops and American nuclear weapons would have to be stationed within the borders of the three countries. . . . Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia might well turn out to be defensible only with nuclear weapons, as West Berlin was during the Cold War, in which case NATO expansion would return the world to the hair trigger nuclear standoff of the 1950's and 1960's. Because of the determined opposition to Baltic membership the Western Europeans will mount, and the huge risks including the Balts will entail, the likeliest option for the United States is the third: Having agreed to defend three countries in Central Europe that are not remotely threatened, the United States will renege on its commitment to defend the Balts precisely because they might be threatened. This option would enshrine in the foreign policy of the United States the principle that American security guarantees are available only to those who don't need them . . . It would break a promise the Balts have received from the United States. . . . The damage to American interests that each of the three options would inflict would be infinitely greater than whatever modest embarrassment rejecting the NATO expansion that is now before the Senate would cause. And rejecting the plan is the only sure way to avoid the damage. Rejection, that is, is the only way to steer the American ship of state clear of the large menacing iceberg toward which the Clinton administration is now guiding it. I couldn't agree more. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Professor Mandelbaum's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield my colleague 1 minute after which I will retain the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I would be pleased to yield him 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Idaho approached me and said he needed to take 5 minutes for an amendment that he wants to lay down. Is that correct? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague, Senator Craig, be allowed up to 5 minutes to offer his amendment and speak on his amendment, after which I then would retain the floor and be able to speak for 30 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent after the vote I be recognized to speak on NATO expansion for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Scott Muschett, an intern in my office, be allowed to be on the floor during this vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask my colleague for 2 seconds?