Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I didn't know whether other people were in order to speak and I was bumping someone out.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, are we in morning business for 10 more minutes?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Both she and Kelly Ross have helped me a great deal on the amendment, so I would love for her to be able to be out on the floor, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Connie Mack from Florida, and I have submitted a resolution that deals with the upcoming U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting in March and the position that our country needs to take in relation to human rights, or lack of human rights in China. This resolution, my understanding is, will be marked up tomorrow in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Mack and I submitted a resolution urging the Clinton administration to make every effort to pass a resolution on China at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights gathering which meets this month in Geneva. For the past 30 years, this Commission has monitored the compliance of different countries with human rights standards. It has investigated violations in countries in all parts of the world, rich and poor, weak and powerful alike. Almost 4 years ago, the Clinton administration announced its decision to renew most-favored-nation status for China and laid out a new human rights policy toward China. At the heart of this policy was the United States commitment, at least in words, to step up efforts to ``insist that the U.N. Human Rights Commission pass a resolution dealing with serious human rights abuses in China.'' Since that time, the Clinton administration has made it clear that only significant, concrete improvements in the human rights conditions would justify a reconsideration of that commitment. China has failed to improve their human rights record, and, in fact, as we turn a blind eye to abuses, the situation appears to be deteriorating. China continues to wage war against individual freedoms and human rights. Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of dissidents and advocates of political reform were detained just this past year. They included human rights and prodemocracy activists and members of religious groups. Many have been sentenced to long prison terms where they have been beaten, tortured, and denied medical care. Harry Wu, a man of extraordinary courage and character, has documented China's extensive prison-enforced labor system. According to Amnesty International, throughout China, mass summary executions continue to be carried out. At least 6,000 death sentences and 3,500 executions were officially recorded in 1996 alone. The real figures, colleagues, are believed to be much higher. According to the New York Times last week, with the help of Harry Wu, the FBI conducted an uncover investigation, which confirmed claims that the Chinese are selling organs from executed prisoners for transplant. Furthermore, repression has increased steadily. Scores of Roman Catholics and Protestants were arrested. Crackdowns continue in Tibet. Authorities ordered the closure of monasteries in Tibet and banned the Dalai Lama's image, and arrests of political dissidents continue. China continues to violently threaten the unique culture, religious, and linguistic identity of the Tibetan people. Taking a firm stand against human rights abuses in China, and around the world, is an expression of our solidarity with people who risk their personal safety to champion these principles. As an aside, in what travels I have been able to do around the world--and I wish I could do more of it, Mr. President--I do not think that I have ever been more moved in my life than by the courage of people who live in countries with repressive governments, whether they be left or right, and who have the courage to stand alone, and the courage to speak up, even when it could mean they could end up serving long prison sentences, or their loved ones, their wives, husbands, and children, can be rounded up, tortured, raped or murdered. These citizens throughout the world continue to have the courage to speak up for basic freedom. Our country ought to be there supporting these courageous individuals. One such person is Kalsang Lhamo, a Tibetan exile living in my home State of Minnesota. I recently met her. She told me how her parents were both detained and tortured by the Chinese PLA when she was a child. Their crime? What was the crime of her parents? As she was speaking to me, Mr. President, there were tears in her eyes. She was crying. The crime of her parents was the possession of photographs of their religious leader. The crime of her parents in Tibet was the possession of photographs of their religious leader. After watching her parents starve to death in detention and her neighbors executed, she, too, was beaten nearly to the point of death by Chinese soldiers during a demonstration. China's release of Wei Jingsheng and its invitations to the U.N. High Commission for Human Rights to visit are welcome steps. A Commission resolution can certainly acknowledge these developments. Mr. President, our Government can lead the way. The resolution that we must pass at this Commission meeting on human rights can acknowledge this. But they are not in themselves enough to bring about real changes in the lives of the people in China and Tibet, and the human rights situation their remains urgent. Also, while we are thankful that Wei Jingsheng is out of prison and safely in the United States, it would be a cruel irony if his release were used as a justification for giving up the fight for human rights in China and for our Government not taking a strong position at this U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva. First, of course, Mr. Wei's release does not represent systematic change. Second, he was not released unconditionally from his unlawful imprisonment, and he can be rearrested, if he ever returns to China. He can't go back to his country. Mr. President, as an aside, though I think it is relevant, my father fled persecution, was born in Odessa, Ukraine, but he grew up in Siberian Russia, and then he fled the country when he was 17 years old, in 1914. Then, after the revolution, he thought he would go back. Then his parents told him not to and the Bolsheviks took over, or the Communists took over, and he never saw his family again. My father and my mother both had advanced Parkinson's at the end of their lives, and so we used to spend a lot of time staying over at their apartment taking care of them. My father had lived in the United States, now, for 65 years. He had no accent at all. He spoke 10 languages fluently, as a matter of fact. He was an amazing man. And yet, when I would spend the night in his room with him, all of his dreaming was in Russian. Talk about the child being the father of the man or the child being the mother of the woman, all of his dreaming was in Russian. And the terrible thing was that it was shouting and it was screaming and it was anguish. I just had to believe that the reason for this, which many Americans can't experience, is how traumatic it must be when you can never go back to your homeland. How traumatic it must be when you can never go back to your country, never see your mother or father. My father, at 17, was separated from his family. I am absolutely convinced that his mother and father and sister were murdered by Stalin. All correspondence ended during the Stalin years. Wei Jingsheng has been released, but he can never go back to China. He would be immediately arrested and imprisoned. That hardly represents a standard of human rights. One of the reasons I speak on the floor of the Senate about human rights is to honor the memory of my father. He could never go back, never saw his family again. And at the end of his life, his dreams, I think, were full of anguish, all in Russian, because of that. Finally, Mr. Wei has told me personally that he believes in the critical importance of our effort to push for a resolution at the session of the Commission this month. Let me repeat that for colleagues. It's a sort of sleepy Monday afternoon on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We will mark this resolution up tomorrow in committee. One way or another, I certainly am going to bring this out as an amendment and we are going to pass it with an overwhelming vote, giving direction to the President and direction to the administration to, at this human rights Commission in Geneva, be sure to pass a resolution which will strongly pressure China on human rights. For God's sake, if Wei Jingsheng--who spent, I don't know, 16 or 17 years in prison because he had the courage to speak up--can put to us this small request that we speak about this on the floor of the Senate, that we try to pass some resolution supporting human rights in his country, we ought to be able to do that. That's the least we ought to be able to do. For years we have pressured the Chinese on human rights, though I don't think with nearly as much force and commitment as we should have. But to let up now, as the U.N. Commission meets, would be tantamount to defeat for the cause of human justice. Dissidents like Wei Jingsheng, who have been freed and have come to the United States, have thanked advocates for keeping them alive by keeping the pressure on and by focusing attention on their plight. As Senators and as Americans, it is our duty and in our interest to make the extra effort to promote democracy in China and, for that matter, in countries throughout the world, and to bring China in compliance with international standards of human rights. So, I just want to say today that I am proud to introduce this resolution with my colleague, Senator Connie Mack from Florida. This will be marked up tomorrow. One way or another, I will get this to the floor of the Senate as an amendment. I want us to vote as a Senate. I want us to give direction to the administration. I want our Government at this U.N. Commission on Human Rights to talk about human rights and to have a resolution which really puts the pressure on China for all of us. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, we ought to at least, through resolutions and through amendments and through votes and through speaking--it is the very least we can do, to support these very courageous people. That is the purpose of this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the resolution that I have submitted with Senator Mack, Senator Helms, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Thomas, Senator Abraham, Senator Boxer and Senator Feingold.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Mack and Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 187 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in morning business. Is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Debra Ladner, an intern in our office, be allowed to be on the floor.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the leader, because I very much want to do that. We have a right to continue to do this and if we are serious about it, we will fight for it, and we can bring amendments out over and over and over again, is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. It will take me only a few seconds. Since this is an effort to basically choke off debate and deny us an opportunity to present amendments--many of us worked on this for years and care fiercely about it and many of the people in the country do. The minority leader understands and certainly realizes that on any bill that comes up forthwith, it would be our right to come back with these amendments, is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the minority leader yield for one moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. He talks about turning nonprofits into powerful political tools. I'm worried about all of the ways, to quote Thomas Mann from the article, that this new practice has ``become an utter corruption of the system.'' I don't want to retreat from clear standards here. Mr. President, since I have less than 2 minutes, I hope the McCain- Feingold bill will pass intact. I hope we will vote for it today. I hope that colleagues will not be able to block it. I hope we will be wary of ``deform'' measures, not reform measures. We have to pass something real. We have to pass something significant. I hope we get a positive vote for this piece of legislation today, and I ask people in the country, please be vigilant, please hold all of us accountable. Don't let the majority party block a reform that would restore your voice and some real democracy in this country. Don't let the U.S. Senate pass a piece of legislation which would have that made-for- Congress look, a great acronym, but will not have the enforcement teeth and would not do the job and really wouldn't get some of the big money out of politics. The McCain-Feingold effort is not all I desire--I proposed the clean money, clean elections approach which has passed in Maine and that was also passed in Vermont--but it is a worthy piece of legislation and it ought to pass the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it has been reported that a majority-- majority; that is, Republican party--written portion of the Governmental Affairs Committee draft report reaches the following conclusion or contains the following statement: ``In 1996, the federal campaign finance system collapsed.'' I would like to associate myself with this observation by the majority members of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Mr. President, the system did collapse. Americans witnessed a corruption, a tarnishing of our political system. And I say to my colleague from Kentucky, the Supreme Court is very clear that that in fact is a justification for reform. People saw in a very systematic way special interest money dominate the discourse. And the American people stayed home in record numbers. It is not surprising that as this system becomes more and more dominated by big money, and regular people feel like they are locked out of involvement, and that this system dominated by money does not respond to the concerns and circumstances of their lives, they stay home. As a matter of fact, we did not even have 50 percent of the people voting in the last Presidential election. That was the third lowest turnout in the history of our country. Some people here on the floor of the U.S. Senate may be comfortable with that reality. I am not. It is the opposite of what I live and work for. And it is the opposite, I would say to my colleagues, of real representative democracy. Mr. President, a New York Times headline: ``1996 Campaign Left Finance Laws in Shreds.'' I agree with the judgment of this article, which I quote: Beneath the cloudy surface of the Senate hearings, one clear picture has emerged: The post-Watergate campaign finance laws that were passed to restrict the influence of special interests in politics have been shredded. Mr. President, Americans know this. Some of my colleagues may not want to face up to these truths, but Americans know it. They know that every Federal Government issue that affects their lives is damaged by the way big money, special interest money has taken over our politics. It is as if there has been a hostile takeover of elections in our country, a hostile takeover of Government, whether it is health care, insurance rates, taxes, telecommunications, banking, tobacco, environment, food and agriculture, trade, oil and pharmaceutical company subsidies. What is on the table and what is not on the table, what is considered reasonable and realistic, what is not considered reasonable and realistic, what is debated, what isn't, what is distorted, what issues are even dealt with in the first place--people in the country know that this is dominated by big money. The system has collapsed. The laws that are meant to regulate it have been shredded. What are we doing about it? We have a good bill, S. 25, the McCain- Feingold bill. It is the pending amendment. It would, A, prohibit soft money to the parties. That is maybe the biggest abuse. This might be the most single important reform that we can undertake; and, B, it restricts--restricts; not prohibits--phony ``issue'' ads which are really election ads. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, read a piece yesterday on the floor of the Senate about $800,000 of so-called issue ads poured into one congressional race, one special election, by a party--$800,000 of so-called issue ads in a New York House district race last year to destroy a candidate there. The bill would also expand disclosure requirements. It would strengthen FEC enforcement, and it would discourage wealthy candidates from spending more than $50,000 of their own money on a race. It is a decent, worthy bill, Mr. President. I hope we can pass it. My two colleagues have worked extremely hard in order to assure that this vote could happen. And I think that the bill will receive a majority of the vote. But it is going to be filibustered. And I fear that most Members of the majority party do not want reform. They are not willing to allow an acceptable version of this bill to receive the 60 votes. Why is that? Mr. President, the public is fed up with the current system. Congressional Quarterly summarizes this aptly. ``While polls show that the public is fed up with the current system, the public is cynical about politicians' ability to fix it.'' Mr. President, my colleague keeps talking about the first amendment. Nobody is saying you cannot spend money. Nobody is saying you cannot speak out. But what we are talking about is that we now have auctions rather than elections. We are talking about the way in which money has subverted this system, systemic corruption, when too few people have too much wealth, power and say, and too many people are left out. Mr. President, we will also be discussing the Snowe-Jeffords proposal. I have said to my colleague from Wisconsin that I am a bit skeptical about it. I am a bit skeptical about it. I am not at all sure that I like the idea that this amendment only gets introduced if all 45 Democrats pledge allegiance to it, so that we can pick up two more Republican votes. But I know it certainly is a desirable alternative to the poison pill, the Paycheck Protection Act. But here is what I am worried about. Maybe for tactical reasons we do it, but maybe for substantive reasons we do not. I am a little worried that we now have the following argument before us: We are desperately afraid that we cannot enact real campaign finance reform this year because the public is not angry enough and because the public is not mobilized; therefore, we should weaken the reform bill in order to excite the public. I do not think that is really going to happen. And I think we need an aroused public behind this worthy effort. Again, I think it is desirable as a substitute for the poison pill Paycheck Protection Act, but it is also a retreat from the definitely superior express-advocacy and issue-ad provisions of the McCain- Feingold bill. Let me just remind my colleagues, that those of us who have been the reformers, we have compromised many times over already. As a matter of fact, the provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill that would affect us most are basically out right now. We are not even talking about a piece of legislation that really affects the way we ourselves raise and spend money in Congressional races. It is an important effort. I am for it. I want it to pass. But I want to be clear, we dropped the voluntary spending limits which would have done the most to assure a more level playing field between incumbents and challengers. In addition, we dropped the free and discounted television time. We also, as a concession, have inserted codification of the Beck language. We have gone a long ways toward trimming this down in order to try and get something passed that would at least be a positive step in the right direction, and the majority party is still stonewalling this. Now, Mr. President, let me be clear in dealing with the provision that Senator Jeffords and Senator Snowe have come up with. There is some merit to it tactically, without any doubt. I still worry that it represents a retreat. I'm not sure we can excite people by continuing to strip this bill down to the point where it doesn't have teeth, and it doesn't do the job. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place a piece by Greg Gordon of the Star Tribune, the largest newspaper in my home State, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me briefly talk about this campaign finance reform bill that is coming to the floor. By the way, this, I think, will be the business of the Senate this week. This is a core issue. This is the core problem, and this is going to be a real important debate for our country. I think it should be very clear to everybody in the country where all of us stand. I know we have differences. Probably the Chair and I have differences on this issue. But I can't help but believe that we can't get some good things done together, because I can't but believe that any of us who have been through these campaigns just hate this system. It is just crazy. I remember when I ran in 1990 in Minnesota the first time around. It was as if the only thing that mattered was how much money you had in terms of who gets to run, in terms of whether you have a viable campaign, in terms of who wins, in terms of what issues get discussed, in terms of who the people are who have access to the Congress all too often, as opposed to so many of the people who don't. This is a core issue, and if you believe that each person should count as one and no more than one in a representative democracy, all the ways in which big money have come to dominate politics severely undercut our democracy. As a matter of fact, I think it is part of what has led to this serious decline of participation of our citizens which really can only lead to decline of our democracy. So there are many concerns that people have, and they care about a lot of issues that are important to themselves and their families. But the problem is, they don't believe that their concerns are of much concern in the Halls of the Congress or, for that matter, the White House, because they believe that the political process in Washington, DC, has become so dominated by big money and special interests. How important it is that we at least take some steps toward eliminating some of this corrupting influence of this big money and try to begin to make these campaigns sane, try to begin to make these campaigns at least a little bit more of a level playing field. The Washington Post had an editorial today: McCain-Feingold is already a limited bill. I agree. I wish we had the clean money-clean election option passed by Maine and Vermont, but McCain-Feingold is a very important step forward. For lack of votes, the original proposals meant to clean out the stables of congressional campaign finance almost all have been dropped. Congress's indignation with regard to financing of presidential United States campaigns somehow does not extend to the financing of its own. Well, I would just ask people in Minnesota and people in the country: Please be vigilant. Please keep an eye out on our work. Do not let the U.S. Senate block reform. And do not let the U.S. Senate pass some piece of legislation that has that made-for-Congress look with a great acronym which pretends to do so much and ends up doing so little. That is the worst of all cases. I'd just as soon we not do anything as opposed to passing something which we claim will make an enormous difference but really does not and will just add to the disillusionment of people in our country. So I just say, this will be an important week. This is going to be an important debate. I hope we will get some things done. For my own part, if the majority leader will let us, I will have a set of amendments that will apply to the Congress. I will have a set of amendments that will apply to our campaigns which will be an effort to begin to go after some of the influence of big money in congressional campaigns along with some of the other things that we will be talking about, like soft money. If I cannot bring those amendments to the floor in this debate, I will bring these amendments to the floor in the next bill that comes up or the following bill that comes up, because I do not think there is any more important issue that is facing this country. So to Minnesotans and to people in the country: Please hold all of us accountable. Do not let people get away with blocking reform. Do not let any of us get away with passing some piece of legislation which has no teeth and makes really no difference at all. Make sure that we take some steps in this U.S. Senate that will at least get some of this big money out of politics and at least move us a little bit more toward elections as opposed to auctions going to the highest bidder. Mr. President, I think that I have about run out of my time. I yield the floor to my colleagues from Connecticut. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from Connecticut, I imagine he came to the floor to speak about Senator Ribicoff. I will not be long. I will say, although I did not have a chance to know Senator Ribicoff, I know so much about him. He was a great Senator. I pass on my sympathy and love to the State of Connecticut and his family.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to talk about 2 issues, and I want to talk about them briefly. First of all, I would like to talk about this past weekend. I feel as if I speak on the floor of the Senate with a sense of history. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, said when he went to Iraq that he considered this to be a sacred mission. I think he was right. I think it was very important and is very important for our country and the international community to have resolve with Saddam Hussein and to make it clear that it is extremely important that there be unhindered inspection so that we, in fact, know what exactly is going on in Iraq and, for that matter, for other countries, I wish it would be the same in terms of development of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, I have to say this from the floor of the U.S. Senate. I believe as a Senator that war is always the last option. When you can talk instead of fight and when you can work out a peaceful solution and when diplomacy works and where there is a nonviolent resolution to a conflict, the world is better off for it. We should have no illusions, though sometimes people come to the floor of the Senate and people talk to each other and we get all pumped up and we talk about going to war and how awful Saddam Hussein is. I certainly agree he is a very cruel-- very cruel--man. But, Mr. President, there is no question that if military action was to be necessary, a lot of innocent people would die. One child, one mother, one civilian in Iraq is one too many. One of our soldiers is one too many. I am prayerfully thankful that Saddam Hussein seems to have understood the importance of these demands and, most important of all, because of the strong position that our country has taken and also because of the very, very skillful diplomacy--very skillful diplomacy--of the Secretary General, I would like to thank the Secretary General for his effort. We haven't dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, and we have not seen the specifics, but I believe as a United States Senator that his mission was a sacred mission. I am very hopeful that we will have a political settlement. I am very hopeful that diplomacy will have worked, and I think the world will be better for that. Whenever we can avoid loss of life, let's first do that. So we all wait to see. From what I have read, from what I have heard, and the Secretary General is a man who is very careful with his words, when he says he believes this will be acceptable to the United Nations, to the Security Council, I don't think he would have said that unless there is good cause for it. So I am very hopeful that this will be acceptable to the Security Council, and we will have a resolution to this conflict without having to go to war, without having to take military action.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me also thank my colleagues from West Virginia and North Dakota for talking about ISTEA, the transportation bill, which is all about investment in infrastructure, which is all about investment in our economies. And Minnesota is another State that awaits anxiously for us to take up this piece of legislation and pass it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last October, Congressman Barney Frank broke new ground when he introduced HR2761, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 1997. I am here today to break ground in the Senate by introducing the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 1998. This bill does not introduce new benefits; it simply extends existing benefits to a previously uncovered group of employees for very little cost. Mr. President, let me take a moment to outline my bill. This bill provides benefits for same-sex domestic partners of civilian, federal employees. Partners must be living together, in a committed, intimate relationship, and responsible for each other's welfare and financial obligations. It provides access to five categories of benefits in the same way that married spouses have access: participation in retirement programs, life insurance, health insurance, compensation for work injuries, and upon the death of a government employee, the domestic partner would be deemed a spouse for the purpose of receiving benefits. This is a bill about justice, about fairness, about equity in the workplace. This bill is about saying to our gay and lesbian employees, ``We value your contribution to the workplace, and to show you we value you, we're going to protect your families, like we protect the families of married employees, by providing them with benefits.'' It is about providing the opportunity for same-sex domestic partners to provide their partners--who previously have been denied--access to such benefits as health insurance. For many people in this country, insurance benefits for their loved ones are automatic, they are expected, they are the norm. But benefits didn't start out that way. In fact, they are a relatively modern invention. Benefits in the form of compensation were created in the 1940's, essentially to increase compensation for some employees who were prohibited by law from getting pay increases. So instead of more pay, employers paid for certain products and services such as health insurance to take care of their employees and to make their businesses more attractive to potential employees. For gay men and lesbians, most of these benefits are completely inaccessible. But where is it written in stone that only married spouses and their children deserve benefits? Yes, many employers have chosen to limit benefits to married spouses and their children, but more and more, governments, universities, and private businesses have been making a different choice. Business and organizations like the San Francisco 49ers, Reader's Digest, Starbucks, Coors, Ben and Jerry's, Kodak, Disney, the Union Theological Seminary, the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers #18, Mattel, the Vermont Girl Scout Council, and more than 50 Fortune 500 companies have made the right choice to offer domestic partnership benefits. A more fair and equitable choice. A more humane choice. I am disappointed that domestic partnership benefits have already been offered in some cities and by some businesses since 1982 but here we are in 1998 and we're just now talking about them here in the Senate. Today there are at least 42 cities and municipalities, 12 counties, 1 state, and 342 private sector for-profit and not-for profit businesses and unions which offer domestic partner benefits. The good news, though, is that we have more than 15 years worth of employers' experiences with providing these benefits. By virtue of our vote on DOMA, we have said that same-sex couples cannot marry. But that doesn't mean that people in long-term, loving, and committed relationships don't deserve to have the opportunity to provide their loved ones with health insurance, survivor benefits, and other benefits. Domestic partnership legislation levels the playing field for same-sex partners who are not allowed to marry. This bill is aimed at correcting that inequity. Here is the story of how not having domestic partnership benefits effected one couple's lives: Anonymous: My partner and I have been together for almost six. About a year ago, he had to leave work due to a serious heart condition. Since my employer doesn't include domestic partnership benefits, we had to pay all of his expenses out of pocket. For quite some time I had to support him from my salary, or else he would have ended up on welfare. We are still scrimping and saving to try and pay off the health care expenses that should have been covered by my insurance (if we had dp benefits). Almost all of my heterosexual friends have been ``married'' less time than my partner and I and received benefits immediately after the marriage. Their relationships seem no more permanent than my own. When my partner and I have been together for fifty years, we will still not have insurance for him through my employer. Not only are domestic partnership benefits fair and just, they cost very little. Employers have found that upon implementing domestic partnership benefits, one percent of all employees--at most--actually sign up their same-sex partners for benefits. And more often, it is less than one percent. Even taking the most liberal figures, there is no legitimate reason to argue that more than 1% of our almost 300,000 federal civilian employees will enroll. And even though this is a relatively small number of employees--at most 30,000--let me tell you, these benefits are of critical importance to those who do. For example, Marieta Louise Luna is a graduate student studying in the Divinity School at Duke University. She says, I just returned home from the hospital on Thursday night from having a knee replacement made possible largely because of the fact that Kathryn is a Duke employee and I have domestic partner benefits. Guaranteed, I could not have had the surgery if I had not had domestic partner benefits. For me, it was the literal difference between walking and being handicapped for the next several years. And at a cost of less than 1% of the total benefits budget--or less-- it is truly worth making this investment. Some might be afraid that domestic partnership policies could open the door to fraud with people signing up their friends in order to get health insurance. Most employers never ask for verification of a heterosexual marriage. I have never been asked to provide a marriage certificate to prove I'm married, and I doubt that many of you have either. But my bill has stringent requirements for qualifying as domestic partners. Among other requirements, partners must sign an affidavit certifying that they share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations. And they must show documentation to prove it--such as copies of a mortgage or lease with both names on it, copies of bank statements showing joint checking or savings accounts, copies of durable powers of attorney for property and health, or copies of wills specifying each other as the major recipients of each other's financial assets. In addition, my bill specifies serious consequences for fraud, including the possibility of disciplinary action, termination of employment, and repayment of any insurance benefits received. Finally, there are criminal statutes that provide that making false statements and defrauding the government are crimes which can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to 5 years. The bottom line is that this bill creates serious consequences for fraud, establishes that every effort will be made to minimize fraud by those falsely claiming to be domestic and specifies that those caught will be seriously punished. Let me tell you one more story: Anonymous from Minnesota: I have had the same health care benefits package for nearly 16 years. I began family coverage when I married in 1978. Our two children were added when they were born. My ex-husband remained on my insurance policy after we divorced--at no additional cost--even though we were not legally married. I am now in a committed lesbian relationship. My partner had been teaching part-time in a private school for two years before she became eligible for health insurance through her employer. Two weeks before her insurance was to take effect she was stricken with severe abdominal pain. Though we considered ``toughing it out'' until her insurance kicked in, it became increasingly clear that she needed to be treated immediately. She had a large, twisted ovarian tumor removed. By the time of the surgery, her insurance was in place. We breathed a sigh of relief. Months later we learned that because her pain started (and was briefly treated) before her insurance began, the claim for coverage for the surgery and hospital stay were disallowed because there was a pre-existing condition exclusion in her insurance policy. We are now faced with over $5,500 (plus 12% interest per year) in medical bills. This may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but it certainly is to us. And it's money that wouldn't have had to be spent at all if she had been on my family coverage all along. So why is it that my ex-husband (no legal relation) was entitled to continue receiving benefits until he married, but my life partner has had to go without medical insurance? The answer is simple--discrimination. This is a bill about fairness. This is about equity in the workplace. This is about protecting employees' loved ones. It's the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, to introduce legislation which would designate the U.S. Post Office Building in downtown St. Paul, MN, as the ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office Building.'' In doing so, we join the entire Minnesota delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives in honoring a man who is of great importance to our state and our nation. This building, which will bear the name of one of Minnesota's great statesmen, stands in Minnesota's capitol, a city represented by Senator McCarthy in the House and Senate for nearly a quarter of a century. When the 4th district, and later all of Minnesota, sent Senator McCarthy to Washington they sent a scholar as well as a legislator, and his service to our state and this nation has not been restricted to his tenure in Congress. He has touched lives as a teacher and author as well. Mr. President, I am proud to know Eugene McCarthy and to follow in his footsteps as a Senator from Minnesota, as a progressive, and as a great believer in grassroots democracy. He is a person who not only articulated, but exercised, a politics of inclusion and who knows that a candidate's success is best built upon a foundation of individuals. While America has had many important leaders, very few have fought the battles Senator McCarthy has fought, very few have shown the commitment he has shown to effecting positive change for ordinary people, and very few can match his record as a man of peace. Mr. President, it is an honor to extend my state's, and my country's, gratitude to Senator McCarthy with this designation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, to introduce legislation which would designate the U.S. Post Office Building in downtown St. Paul, MN, as the ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office Building.'' In doing so, we join the entire Minnesota delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives in honoring a man who is of great importance to our state and our nation. This building, which will bear the name of one of Minnesota's great statesmen, stands in Minnesota's capitol, a city represented by Senator McCarthy in the House and Senate for nearly a quarter of a century. When the 4th district, and later all of Minnesota, sent Senator McCarthy to Washington they sent a scholar as well as a legislator, and his service to our state and this nation has not been restricted to his tenure in Congress. He has touched lives as a teacher and author as well. Mr. President, I am proud to know Eugene McCarthy and to follow in his footsteps as a Senator from Minnesota, as a progressive, and as a great believer in grassroots democracy. He is a person who not only articulated, but exercised, a politics of inclusion and who knows that a candidate's success is best built upon a foundation of individuals. While America has had many important leaders, very few have fought the battles Senator McCarthy has fought, very few have shown the commitment he has shown to effecting positive change for ordinary people, and very few can match his record as a man of peace. Mr. President, it is an honor to extend my state's, and my country's, gratitude to Senator McCarthy with this designation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last October, Congressman Barney Frank broke new ground when he introduced HR2761, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 1997. I am here today to break ground in the Senate by introducing the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 1998. This bill does not introduce new benefits; it simply extends existing benefits to a previously uncovered group of employees for very little cost. Mr. President, let me take a moment to outline my bill. This bill provides benefits for same-sex domestic partners of civilian, federal employees. Partners must be living together, in a committed, intimate relationship, and responsible for each other's welfare and financial obligations. It provides access to five categories of benefits in the same way that married spouses have access: participation in retirement programs, life insurance, health insurance, compensation for work injuries, and upon the death of a government employee, the domestic partner would be deemed a spouse for the purpose of receiving benefits. This is a bill about justice, about fairness, about equity in the workplace. This bill is about saying to our gay and lesbian employees, ``We value your contribution to the workplace, and to show you we value you, we're going to protect your families, like we protect the families of married employees, by providing them with benefits.'' It is about providing the opportunity for same-sex domestic partners to provide their partners--who previously have been denied--access to such benefits as health insurance. For many people in this country, insurance benefits for their loved ones are automatic, they are expected, they are the norm. But benefits didn't start out that way. In fact, they are a relatively modern invention. Benefits in the form of compensation were created in the 1940's, essentially to increase compensation for some employees who were prohibited by law from getting pay increases. So instead of more pay, employers paid for certain products and services such as health insurance to take care of their employees and to make their businesses more attractive to potential employees. For gay men and lesbians, most of these benefits are completely inaccessible. But where is it written in stone that only married spouses and their children deserve benefits? Yes, many employers have chosen to limit benefits to married spouses and their children, but more and more, governments, universities, and private businesses have been making a different choice. Business and organizations like the San Francisco 49ers, Reader's Digest, Starbucks, Coors, Ben and Jerry's, Kodak, Disney, the Union Theological Seminary, the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers #18, Mattel, the Vermont Girl Scout Council, and more than 50 Fortune 500 companies have made the right choice to offer domestic partnership benefits. A more fair and equitable choice. A more humane choice. I am disappointed that domestic partnership benefits have already been offered in some cities and by some businesses since 1982 but here we are in 1998 and we're just now talking about them here in the Senate. Today there are at least 42 cities and municipalities, 12 counties, 1 state, and 342 private sector for-profit and not-for profit businesses and unions which offer domestic partner benefits. The good news, though, is that we have more than 15 years worth of employers' experiences with providing these benefits. By virtue of our vote on DOMA, we have said that same-sex couples cannot marry. But that doesn't mean that people in long-term, loving, and committed relationships don't deserve to have the opportunity to provide their loved ones with health insurance, survivor benefits, and other benefits. Domestic partnership legislation levels the playing field for same-sex partners who are not allowed to marry. This bill is aimed at correcting that inequity. Here is the story of how not having domestic partnership benefits effected one couple's lives: Anonymous: My partner and I have been together for almost six. About a year ago, he had to leave work due to a serious heart condition. Since my employer doesn't include domestic partnership benefits, we had to pay all of his expenses out of pocket. For quite some time I had to support him from my salary, or else he would have ended up on welfare. We are still scrimping and saving to try and pay off the health care expenses that should have been covered by my insurance (if we had dp benefits). Almost all of my heterosexual friends have been ``married'' less time than my partner and I and received benefits immediately after the marriage. Their relationships seem no more permanent than my own. When my partner and I have been together for fifty years, we will still not have insurance for him through my employer. Not only are domestic partnership benefits fair and just, they cost very little. Employers have found that upon implementing domestic partnership benefits, one percent of all employees--at most--actually sign up their same-sex partners for benefits. And more often, it is less than one percent. Even taking the most liberal figures, there is no legitimate reason to argue that more than 1% of our almost 300,000 federal civilian employees will enroll. And even though this is a relatively small number of employees--at most 30,000--let me tell you, these benefits are of critical importance to those who do. For example, Marieta Louise Luna is a graduate student studying in the Divinity School at Duke University. She says, I just returned home from the hospital on Thursday night from having a knee replacement made possible largely because of the fact that Kathryn is a Duke employee and I have domestic partner benefits. Guaranteed, I could not have had the surgery if I had not had domestic partner benefits. For me, it was the literal difference between walking and being handicapped for the next several years. And at a cost of less than 1% of the total benefits budget--or less-- it is truly worth making this investment. Some might be afraid that domestic partnership policies could open the door to fraud with people signing up their friends in order to get health insurance. Most employers never ask for verification of a heterosexual marriage. I have never been asked to provide a marriage certificate to prove I'm married, and I doubt that many of you have either. But my bill has stringent requirements for qualifying as domestic partners. Among other requirements, partners must sign an affidavit certifying that they share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations. And they must show documentation to prove it--such as copies of a mortgage or lease with both names on it, copies of bank statements showing joint checking or savings accounts, copies of durable powers of attorney for property and health, or copies of wills specifying each other as the major recipients of each other's financial assets. In addition, my bill specifies serious consequences for fraud, including the possibility of disciplinary action, termination of employment, and repayment of any insurance benefits received. Finally, there are criminal statutes that provide that making false statements and defrauding the government are crimes which can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to 5 years. The bottom line is that this bill creates serious consequences for fraud, establishes that every effort will be made to minimize fraud by those falsely claiming to be domestic and specifies that those caught will be seriously punished. Let me tell you one more story: Anonymous from Minnesota: I have had the same health care benefits package for nearly 16 years. I began family coverage when I married in 1978. Our two children were added when they were born. My ex-husband remained on my insurance policy after we divorced--at no additional cost--even though we were not legally married. I am now in a committed lesbian relationship. My partner had been teaching part-time in a private school for two years before she became eligible for health insurance through her employer. Two weeks before her insurance was to take effect she was stricken with severe abdominal pain. Though we considered ``toughing it out'' until her insurance kicked in, it became increasingly clear that she needed to be treated immediately. She had a large, twisted ovarian tumor removed. By the time of the surgery, her insurance was in place. We breathed a sigh of relief. Months later we learned that because her pain started (and was briefly treated) before her insurance began, the claim for coverage for the surgery and hospital stay were disallowed because there was a pre-existing condition exclusion in her insurance policy. We are now faced with over $5,500 (plus 12% interest per year) in medical bills. This may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but it certainly is to us. And it's money that wouldn't have had to be spent at all if she had been on my family coverage all along. So why is it that my ex-husband (no legal relation) was entitled to continue receiving benefits until he married, but my life partner has had to go without medical insurance? The answer is simple--discrimination. This is a bill about fairness. This is about equity in the workplace. This is about protecting employees' loved ones. It's the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Finally, Mr. President--I know other colleagues are on the floor. I just looked back and I saw Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, who I think has been the best labor Senator maybe in the history of the country. Maybe along with Senator Metzenbaum. It was Saturday night, and I promised myself I would do this. I want to make this a part of the official Record of the U.S. Senate. Saturday night, on the Iron Range in Eveleth, MN, there was at a gathering to honor a man named Frank Strukel who has been one great labor organizer. He is struggling with ALS, which is commonly called Lou Gehrig's disease. His friends from all over the State of Minnesota came to honor him. He should be honored. I see my colleagues--Senator Ashcroft, who happens to be a good friend, even though we do not always agree on issues. But one thing we do agree on is we respect people who work hard on things that they believe in. We respect people who live by the words they speak. Frank Strukel was that way. Frank Strukel is that way. I am hoping and praying he will somehow figure out a way to defeat this disease. He said that night he is going to be with us for a long time. I hope and pray that is the case. I promised him that I would say on the floor of the Senate that Frank Strukel has been one heck of a hell-raising labor organizer. And he has been just that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I want to move on and talk about a related topic, in fact, very related, and this is a discussion that is urgent and long overdue. It has to do with the bill, S. 270, that would result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste in a small, poor, majority Latino community in rural west Texas. I want to stop that from happening, not only in Sierra Blanca, but in poor minority communities all over this country. The best way to get this conversation going, which is a conversation about environmental justice, is to make sure that the story of Sierra Blanca gets told, and it is an incredible story. Last week, several of the people who have been telling that story for several years were here in Washington. Father Ralph Solis, who is the parish priest for Sierra Blanca, led a delegation of Texans who told us of the anger and the anguish of the people of Sierra Blanca. It is not just the people of Sierra Blanca who are organizing. Citizens from all over Texas, from cities and towns through which radioactive waste will be passing on its way to Sierra Blanca, are all demanding that their voices be heard. The newspaper columnist Molly Ivins has written that, ``This is community action and local organizing at its very best.'' I couldn't agree more. Let me tell you something about Sierra Blanca. It is a small town in one of the poorest areas of Texas. The average income of the people who live there is less than $8,000 a year, and 39 percent of them live below the poverty line. Over 66 percent of the residents are Mexican American, and many speak only Spanish. It is a town that already has one of the largest sewage sludge projects in the world. Every week, 250 tons of partially treated sludge are brought to Sierra Blanca. So why has Sierra Blanca been targeted with both a sewage sludge project and a radioactive dump? I am firmly convinced the issue here is one of environmental justice. The tragedy of Sierra Blanca is part of the larger and very disturbing pattern across the country. In far too many instances, poor people of color simply don't have the political clout to keep the pollution out of their communities. Studies by the United Church of Christ's Commission for Racial Justice, for example, found that race was the single best predictor of the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities, and Texas was second only to California in the number of such facilities located in communities with above-average percentage of minorities. I don't think that is a coincidence. Let me be clear about one thing, Mr. President. Sierra Blanca is not being singled out because its residents are unusually fond of waste. In April 1992, the Texas Waste Authority commissioned a telephone poll of surrounding communities, areas where the poorest residents don't even have telephones, and they found that 64 percent of the people oppose the dump. But you don't need a poll to tell you that. Just show up at any town meeting or any licensing hearing. Local residents are often angry and emotional about their community being turned into a radioactive dump. And they have every right to be. Let us be clear about one other thing as well. Science does not explain the selection of Sierra Blanca, either. In the early 1980s, the Texas Waste Authority screened the entire State to find the most scientifically appropriate site. Their engineering consultants, Dames & Moore, concluded that the Sierra Blanca site was unsuitable for a nuclear dump because of its complex geology. But, lo and behold, that was the site that was chosen. You will hear again and again from colleagues on the other side that this siting decision is a purely local matter. It is not. The most obvious reason is that it is up to the Congress to ratify this Compact between Texas, Maine, and Vermont. Without the Compact, it is unlikely there will be a dump. Without the upfront payments from the other States, where is the construction money going to come from? And by the Texas Waste Authority's own projections, the dump will not be economically viable if Maine and Vermont do not sign up in advance. Texas does not generate enough waste. There are other reasons why this debate rises above the purely local level. If the Texas Compact passes the Senate, it is entirely possible that Sierra Blanca will become the low-level radioactive waste dump for the entire country. Backers of the Compact say that that is not their plan. They say no other States besides Maine and Vermont will ship waste to Texas. If that is the case, then I propose a solution. And I am hoping there will be support for this. Let the Senate agree to an amendment I want to offer, which is just like the Doggett amendment that passed the House, limiting the Compact to Maine and Vermont. Now, it seems to me, if the argument is being made that the only waste that is going to come to Texas is from Maine and Vermont, then let us just pass that amendment. And let us be clear about it. Then the debate is over. But we cannot shirk our responsibilities by pretending that this is nothing more than a State or local affair. The Sierra Blanca dump is unlikely to be built if the Senate rejects this Compact. But if the Senate approves this Compact, Sierra Blanca may become the Nation's premier dump site for low-level radioactive waste. It is that simple. The Senate vote will largely determine whether or not a grave injustice is inflicted on a community that deserves no such thing. It would be easy for all of us to turn our backs and just ignore this issue. But there is no way for the Senate to wash its hands of this business. For good or ill, we bear moral responsibility for what happens to the people of Sierra Blanca. This is a wrong that richly deserves to be righted. And we have the power to do just that. Mr. President, again, let me just make it clear that this is an issue of environmental justice. It is a David versus Goliath fight. There are lots of big guns in here that are pushing for this waste dump site. But we have one thing on our side. My colleagues have said, ``Rest assured, this will only be waste from Maine and Vermont that will go to Texas.'' I say, if that is the case, please support the Doggett amendment. It has already passed the House of Representatives. Then we can go forward. I will have one other amendment which just says that if we approve the Compact, but it turns out that it can be proven that this has a discriminatory effect on a community of color or low-income people, then they have the right to go to court. If those amendments pass, then this Compact will pass the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I do believe that the people of Sierra Blanca and hundreds of minority communities just like them from around the country have not been given their due. But we can make the system work. I am firmly convinced of that. Sometimes justice needs a second chance. Sometimes it needs a little push. And over the next few weeks, I think we are going to give justice a second chance on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am hoping that these amendments will be accepted. I believe that would be the right thing to do. I think there should be strong bipartisan support for that. If that does not happen, then I am prepared to use all of the hours on the floor of the U.S. Senate that I have at my disposal as a Senator--and I will use those many hours--to talk about environmental justice in this country. Over and over and over again, we essentially take this waste and we dump it, right on the heads of low-income people. Over and over and over again, we look to the communities of color, we look to poor communities, we look to the communities that are not the heavy hitters, that are not well connected, and this is where we put it. This happens all across the country. I can bring to the floor of the Senate study after study after study that show that. I can marshal the evidence. I am hoping that we will agree that this Compact will be something we can pass, if we make it clear that the waste can only come from Maine and Vermont. If not, I think for the first time on the floor of the U.S. Senate we will have a really--maybe not the first time--but we will certainly have a very thorough and important debate, I think, about environmental justice.