Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. First of all, let me just say to my colleague from Indiana that I really appreciate much of what he said, and I also appreciate his passion. I do not know anybody more committed to this whole idea of volunteer citizen action and helping people. I deeply respect him for it. Mr. President, I think that one of the things I want people to know who are watching this debate is that there are some other things going on in the Senate right now that are extremely important. This piece of legislation, I think, can be debated and people can deal with the substance of it, but at the moment, just speaking for Minnesota, and I know there are other Senators that feel very strongly about this in the Dakotas, we have a disaster relief bill we are trying to get through the Senate. Mr. President, I think one of the stumbling blocks right now--and I am really sorry that my colleague from Georgia is faced with this, because I think it has nothing to do with him at all--with the disaster relief bill, on the one hand you have people like Chairman Stevens of the Appropriations Committee pushing hard to help. I am sure of that. But you now have a proposal--and I am not sure who exactly is playing this game, and it is a game--to attach a continuing resolution on to a disaster relief bill. Mr. President, I think that is the problem we are faced with. The whole issue of liability, the whole question of what kind of tort reform there might be in relation to nonprofits and citizen volunteer efforts is important. We should get to that legislation. We should vote it up or down. I am pleased to debate it. But at the moment I say that I think the business of the Senate and the House is to get the assistance to people who have really been faced with a real disaster in their lives. People in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, everybody that lived in the city had to vacate. People are not going to be able to get back on their own two feet. They will not be able to repair their homes. They will not be able to start their businesses again. This is a life-or-death issue. I do not think I am being melodramatic. We were so hopeful there would be action. Again, I thank Chairman Stevens for his work, and certainly Senator Byrd for his work, but now we have a development which, essentially, led to the committee today essentially having to call off its business. It is this proposal that comes from somebody, or somebodies, to attach a continuing resolution. Now, for people who are listening to this debate and wondering what is that all about, let me just be clear about it. What this continuing resolution would do is, it would essentially attach on to a disaster relief bill 98 percent of this budget, although if you look to next year, it amounts to a 7-percent cut. In other words, rather than having up-or-down votes on appropriations bills, having an honest debate about what our priorities are or are not, some people would like to play this game of attaching on to what was supposed to be a disaster relief bill to provide assistance to families who were waiting for this assistance, who are hoping for this assistance, who are paying for this assistance, now we have this new effort which would put into effect cuts in the Pell grant program--I will not even go through all the statistics-- work-study program, education for disadvantaged children, literacy programs, National Institutes of Health programs, Head Start, senior nutrition, the list goes on. Mr. President, in all due respect, I do not know whose proposal this is, but I think it is a cowardly way--and I am pleased to debate anybody who wants to debate me--it is a cowardly way of loading junk on to a disaster relief bill. Mr. President, again, I give all the credit in the world to people like Senator Stevens, who is in there pitching for us, but I do not know who decided to do this, but it is really crass. Mr. President, the President has already said that he would veto such a piece of legislation because, as President of the United States of America, he cannot go back on a commitment he has made to people, the commitment he has made to Pell grants and higher education, the commitment he has made to Head Start, the commitment he made to nutrition programs for senior citizens, he cannot put, through the back door, cuts in those programs. I make a plea, and I would like to have a discussion with my colleague from South Dakota about this. I would like to make a strong plea to colleagues. Please join the efforts of Senators like Senator Stevens, who is in there pitching for us. Please understand there are people in the Dakotas and Minnesota who are really praying for help, who believe we will come through for them, who believe we will be able to help their families, who believe we will be able to help them get on their own two feet so they have a chance to rebuild their lives. Please do not attach this junk on to what is supposed to be a disaster relief bill. The business of the Congress right now ought to be to pass this disaster relief bill and get the assistance to people who need it. I just ask my colleagues, the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from South Dakota, what you are hearing from your own States?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield 1 of my minutes to the Senator from Connecticut and tell him that he owes me big time forever.

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. My last point, Mr. President, which is again related-- and I see my colleague from North Dakota has now come to the floor--is that one of the things I hope we will do next week--the sooner the better and I hope we will do it right--is, please, colleagues, help all of us out from the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and some other States as well. Many of the people who we truly love have just been devastated by this flooding. It really seems of Biblical proportions. It is unbelievable what has happened. We are now trying to put together a disaster relief bill to enable people to get back on their own two feet, to be able to rebuild their lives, and to rebuild our communities. The bill that is coming over from the House Appropriations Committee takes us in that direction, but we have to do better on the Senate side. This is, of course, evolving. We do not know the extent of the damage yet. But I ask my colleagues, I plead with my colleagues, please give us all of your support. We are going to have to especially make sure that we get the assistance directly to individuals. For a lot of our small businesses that have been completely wiped out, completely wiped out--people have just lost their homes--right now we do not have near the direct grant assistance we need, and some of the loan programs just will not help them get back on their feet. All of us are working very hard on this. This is truly an example of there but for the grace of God go I. Every time there has ever been a disaster relief bill come to the floor of the Senate, I have never hesitated to support it because I always know that this could happen to anybody. Nobody in South Dakota or North Dakota or Minnesota asked for this. People did not ask for their towns to be under water, did not ask to lose their homes, did not ask to be refugees, and did not ask to have their small businesses wiped out. If there is ever a role for Government, it is to try to help people that really need help. Mr. President, I just urge all of my colleagues, please, help us out, Democrats and Republicans alike. Please let us do well for the people in our States. This is something that I think really, truly should and must unite all of us together. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, I would like to welcome, so that this would be part of the Congressional Record, the really beautiful children of St. Ann Episcopal Church in the South Bronx who came here yesterday for a visit. These are wonderful children. They were written about in Jonathan Kozol's book ``Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children in the Conscience of a Nation.'' I wish to let those children know that it was really wonderful to have them here in the Nation's Capitol and I am sure that someday some of them will serve in the Senate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. The third point, Mr. President--and I just have four to make in a short period of time--I come to the floor today to also urge my colleagues to move forward with final confirmation of Alexis Herman as Secretary of Labor. Really, I think it is time to let her go free. Mr. President, you and I are both on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. By unanimous vote, we passed her out of the committee. She is eminently qualified. We have a lot of work to do. We have a controversial TEAM Act that is going to be before us. We have the bill which we spent a lot of time on, the comp-time, flextime bill that has passed out of committee and that is going to come before us. I have been the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Employment and Training. I think Senator DeWine is doing an excellent job. We are very serious about moving forward with this job training, work force development bill, but we do not have a Secretary of Labor. Quite frankly, I do not think that people in the Senate should be holding her hostage. They may agree or disagree with a particular Executive order by the President. I do not come here to debate that, although I agree with the President on what he has done. But the point is, it is just absolutely outrageous to hold her hostage, and it is time to free her. It is time to let Alexis Herman, who is eminently well qualified to be Secretary of Labor, become Secretary of Labor. Please remember, this is a Cabinet-level position connected to the concerns and circumstances of the vast majority of people in this country who are focused on living wage jobs, who are focused on employment conditions, and who are focused on being able to make a decent living for their children, who are focused on economic security for themselves and their families. This is no small position. It is time to let her go forward. Mr. President, I know that if that does not happen, we will have a major confrontation here in the Senate and I wish we would not have to have it. I hope we do not get to that point, but really it is time to let her free and it is time to no longer hold her hostage.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to speak on several matters that are at least somewhat related.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. On a second topic that is clearly related to this topic, Mr. President, I had an opportunity to talk to Senator Bumpers and Senator Cochran, who are going to be very key in the appropriations bill, who are working on this supplemental appropriations bill, and I would like to thank them for their effort to really restore adequate funding for the Women, Infants, and Children Program. I think Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers are very committed to doing it. Both the Washington Post and New York Times had editorials yesterday. The problem is what we get coming over from the House as opposed to an additional $76 million that the White House now realizes it needs to make sure that 180,000 women and infant children are not falling between the cracks with inadequate care. This has to do with avoiding low birthweight, childhood anemia, this has to do, frankly, with the whole issue of infant mortality. I cannot think of anything more cruel than for us not to fully fund this program. It works. There has not been one study by anybody, anywhere that has made the case that we must not invest in nutrition for our children. I am really hopeful that when we mark this bill up next week on the Senate side we will get it right and we will not turn our gaze away from the conditions of children. Too many children are malnourished. Too many women who are expecting children are malnourished.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Chemical Weapons Convention goes into force April 29 with or without U.S. participation. This, after more than 100 years of international efforts to ban chemical weapons, including the Hague Convention of 1889 and the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which placed restrictions on the use of chemical weapons. The history of chemical weapons use is a long one--from 1915 with the German use of chlorine gas in Belgium during World War I, to the Iraqi use of poison gas to kill an estimated 4,000 people in the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, and the very recent threat of chemical weapons use in the Persian Gulf war. These chemical weapons are dangerous--not only because of intentional, but also accidental use. In Minnesota, I've listened to many gulf war veterans who've told me about their experiences during the conflict. Much is still unknown about chemical weapons use in the gulf and there is great concern throughout the Minnesota veterans community. I've seen the tragic effects of this when I've met with gulf war veterans who went to the gulf in perfect health but became seriously ill after they returned. While many are uncertain about the causes of their illnesses, they suspect that exposure to toxic chemical agents was a factor. Mr. President, I want to tell my colleagues about a story I recently heard concerning veterans who were part of the 477th Ambulance Company who may have been exposed to toxic chemicals. After the war, a couple of company members went exploring the area nearby and noticed a spill on the floor of a warehouse. There's no way of knowing now exactly what the substance was, but they are concerned about possible exposure to a nerve agent. They were alarmed because even this kind of low-level exposure can be a serious threat to our soldiers' safety and health. The plea from the Minnesotan who told this story is, ``Please! Get everyone to stop using this junk!'' Well, that is exactly what we are trying to do, and ratifying the CWC is a vital step in that direction. If we don't sign up, America's soldiers--and indeed, all Americans-- will be the worse for it. Another Minnesotan who was a nuclear-biological-chemical warfare specialist during the war talked about the panic and incorrect use of protective equipment that occurred when there were scud alerts accompanied by CBW alerts. There were soldiers who just couldn't handle the threat of possible chemical attacks. And why should we be surprised? The use of chemical weapons is inhuman and even the perceived threat has to be psychologically damaging. These stories just strengthen my resolve to do all I can to push for ratification of this treaty. Mr. President, we face a decision between taking a lead role in this effort or standing on the sidelines--this decision should not be difficult for the United States which historically has taken the lead in arms control, seeking agreements that are in the national interest, verifiable, and contribute to world peace. I repeat in the national interest, verifiable, and contribute to world peace. And there is no question in my mind that the CWC fully meets these standards. To me, it is a great mystery why this treaty is not already ratified. After all, Congress directed in 1985 that all U.S. chemical munitions be destroyed by 1999--since amended to 2004. Subsequently in 1993, the United States became one of the original signatories of the CWC, now awaiting ratification by this body. It would seem that there's nothing so dramatic as waiting until the last minute to make an obvious and sensible decision. This international treaty takes a major step forward in the elimination of the scourge of chemical weapons. As the world's only superpower and leader in the fight for world peace, we must be out front on this convention. This treaty itself has a very interesting and solid bipartisan history as well as strong popular support, and I am mystified as to why some of my colleagues want to reject a treaty for which we are largely responsible. The CWC was conceived during the Reagan administration, crafted and signed during the Bush administration and further negotiated during the Clinton administration. Former President Bush has continued to proclaim strong support for ratification. Its bipartisan creditials are thus impeccable. Legislators and national security experts from both parties firmly support it. Former Secretary of State James Baker argues that it is outrageous to suggest that either Presidents Bush or Reagan would negotiate a treaty that would harm national security. President Clinton sees the accord as building on the treaty than bans nuclear tests in the atmosphere that President Kennedy signed more than three decades ago. The Senate now needs to complete the weapons-control work to which Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush and Clinton were and have been committed. By at least restricting the manufacture, sale, and possession of toxic chemicals capable of being used as weapons, the United States makes it more difficult for rogue nations or terrorist organizations to obtain the raw material for weapons. Ultimately, we then better protect our soldiers and civilians. We should help lead the world away from these graveyard gases, and not pretend they are essential to a solid defense. Do we plan to use chemical weapons? No. Then do we lack the courage to lead? I certainly hope not. Mr. President, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the United States is the only nation with the power, influence, and respect to forge a strong global consensus against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. There is also support for this treaty from the armed services. I have the unique perspective of serving on both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I know that many veterans organizations support this treaty--VFW, VVA, Reserve Officers Association of U.S., American Ex-prisoners of War, AMVETS, Jewish War Vets to name a few. What better testimony to its value? The treaty will reduce world stockpiles of weapons and will hopefully prevent our troops from being exposed to poison gases. And, for my colleagues who are still not convinced on the merits of the treaty--over three quarters of the American public--as much as 84 percent in a recent poll, favors this treaty. But why then are there opponents to this treaty? I cannot answer that. I can only say that it is always easier to tear something down than it is to build it. Ask ethnic minorities in Iraq--who were the victims of Saddam's chemical attacks--why there are opponents. Ask Generals Schwartzkopf and Powell why there are opponents. According to General Powell, this treaty serves our national interest--to quote his comments at last week's Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing: ``For us to reject that treaty now because there are rogue nations outside the treaty is the equivalent of saying we shouldn't have joined NATO because Russia wasn't a part of NATO.'' If we don't sign this treaty, their will still be rogue nations. Ask the State Department, the intelligence community, the chemical manufacturers who stand to lose as much as $600 million in sales, why there are opponents to this treaty. And ask our own gulf war veterans who lived with the fear of chemical attack and may now be suffering the effects of exposure to chemicals why there are opponents. They and I will never understand it. Mr. President, ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention is crucial to all nonproliferation efforts. If America's message to the world is that the United States is not deeply concerned about the production of weapons of mass destruction, then it will encourage rogue states to either continue clandestine projects or to begin producing these weapons that could imperil U.S. troops in future conflicts. Lack of U.S. resolve on the CWC and the unraveling effect it would have on other arms control treaties, would make it easier for rogue states in two ways: they could more easily acquire chemical weapons materials and more effectively hide their production programs. How can we best protect the future of our children, our soldiers, our trade, our country's position in the world? By ratifying this treaty. I'm deeply puzzled as to why, when at long last the Senate is on the verge of giving its advice and consent to CWC ratification, we are being asked to consider treaty-killer conditions. Again, I remind my colleague, this treaty has been more than 15 years in the making with two Republican Presidents and one Democratic President involved in negotiating and crafting the final product. It is the result of years of bipartisan efforts. The CWC has been strongly endorsed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft--both of whom served Republican Presidents. It also enjoys the support of our top commanders during the Persian Gulf war, including General Schwarzkopf, who clearly recognize that it is in our national interest to ratify the treaty. While I do not question the motives and integrity of my colleagues who support these four killer conditions, it is clear that they are not a result of insufficient Senate scrutiny and debate. In fact, the CWC has been before the Senate since November 1993, when it was submitted by President Clinton. During the past 3\1/2\ years, the Senate has held 17 hearings on the treaty and the administration has provided the Senate with more than 1,500 pages of information on the CWC, including over 300 pages of testimony and over 400 pages of answers to questions for the record. It is important to recall that in April 1996 the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted the treaty out of committee by a strong bipartisan majority, 13 to 5. Why then, only 1 year later, are we confronting four conditions, any of which will prevent us from ratifying the treaty by April 29 when it will automatically go into effect, and a fifth condition that is unacceptable and would undermine the treaty? Mr. President, I hope that all of my colleagues realize that the United States will incur serious costs if we don't submit instruments of ratification by April 29. Unless we join the convention now, the United States will be barred from having a seat on the executive council, the key decisionmaking body of the convention, for at least a year and, perhaps, longer. We would thus be precluded from influencing vital decisions to be made by the executive council regarding the detailed procedures that will be followed under the convention. Moreover, sanctions against U.S. companies--the requirement that they obtain end-user certificates to export certain chemicals--will commence on April 29 if we are not a convention party. If we still haven't joined in 3 years, U.S. firms would be subject to a ban on trade in certain chemicals. In addition, U.S. citizens won't be hired as officials or inspectors by the body that will implement the convention until the United States becomes a party to the CWC. And, even more important than these costs to the United States, is the fact that failure to ratify the treaty, which was produced because of U.S. leadership, will have a negative impact on American leadership around the world. While I will never understand why we have come to such a pass, it is crystal clear to me why we have to move to strike all five of these conditions. Mr. President, permit me to briefly summarize each of the five conditions and to spell out the key reasons why I'm unalterably opposed to them: CWC condition No. 29 on Russia precludes the United States from joining the convention until Russia ratifies and satisfies other specified conditions. This is a killer condition that would hold hostage our ability to join the CWC to hardliners in the Russian Duma. As the President put it, ``this is precisely backwards [since] the best way to secure Russian ratification is to ratify the treaty ourselves.'' I couldn't agree more with the President, whose position parallels that of Vil Myrzyanov, a Russian scientist who blew the whistle on the Soviet Union's CW program and strongly backs the treaty. In a recent letter to my distinguished colleague, Senator Lugar, he said ``Senate ratification of the convention is crucial to securing action on the treaty in Moscow.'' Unless, my colleagues join me in striking this amendment, we'll be permitting Russian hardliners to decide our foreign policy, while dimming prospects that Russia--which has the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons--will ratify the CWC. How can this be in our national interest? CWC condition No. 30 on rogue states bars the United States from ratifying the CWC until all states determined to possess offensive chemical weapons programs, including China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, and other states deemed to be state sponsors of terrorism, have ratified. This is a killer condition likely to prevent the United States from ever joining the CWC. If this condition is not struck we would be using the lowest common denominator as a principle for determining our foreign policy. The United States would be placed in the bizarre and embarrassing position of allowing the world's most recalcitrant regimes to determine when we join the CWC, if ever. As former Secretary of State James Baker has said: ``It makes no sense to argue that because a few pariah states refuse to join the convention the United States should line up with them rather than the rest of the world.'' Makes no sense at all, which is precisely why I strongly support striking this condition. CWC condition No. 31 on barring CWC inspectors from a number of countries such as Cuba, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, from ever entering the United States as part of CWC inspection teams. This is an unnecessary condition that has the potential to seriously hamstring CWC implementation. To begin with, the United States already has the right under the CWC to bar inspectors on an individual basis each year when the CWC proposes its list of inspectors. If this condition is not struck, it is likely to provoke reciprocity, resulting in other nations blackballing all American inspectors. This would have the perverse effect of undermining one of our main objectives in joining the treaty: to ensure American inspectors take the lead in finding violations. In addition, condition No. 31 would bar inspectors from a country like China even if United States national security might be better served by letting them confirm directly that the United States is not violating the CWC, but fails to require rejection of inspectors from other countries who might be known spies or have a record of improper handling of confidential data. Because of these serious flaws, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to strike this condition. CWC condition No. 32 which prohibits the United States from joining the CWC until the President certifies that the parties to the convention have agreed to strike article X and amend article XI. This provision is an outright killer that will prevent the United States from joining the Convention. Clearly the President can't make such a certification prior to April, and likely won't ever be able to do so since the Convention permits a single State party to veto such amendments. Proponents of condition No. 32 wrongly contend that the Convention requires the United States and other parties to share sensitive technology that will assist such countries as Iran to develop offensive CW capabilities. In fact, Mr. President, neither article X nor article XI have such requirements. Article X, which focuses mainly on assisting or protecting convention member countries attacked, or facing attack, by chemical weapons, provides complete flexibility for states to determine what type of assistance to provide and how to provide it. One option would be to provide solely medical antidotes and treatments to the threatened state. This is precisely the option the President has chosen under agreed condition No. 15 which specifies that the United States will give only medical help to such countries as Iran or Cuba under article X. Moreover, beyond medical assistance, the President has made clear the United States will be careful in deciding what assistance to provide on a case-by-case basis. In sum, there is no valid justification for scrapping article X. Opponents of the CWC contend that article XI, which addresses the exchange of scientific and technical information, requires the sharing of technology and will result in the erosion of export controls now imposed by the Australia Group of chemical exporting countries, which includes the United States. While this is plainly not the case, the President under agreed condition No. 7 is committed to obtain assurances from our Australia Group partners that article XI is fully consistent with maintaining export curbs on dangerous chemicals. Condition No. 7 also requires the President to certify that the CWC doesn't obligate the United States to modify its national export controls, as well as to certify annually that the Australia Group is maintaining controls that are equal to, or exceed, current export controls. Mr. President, one final point regarding the Condition's proponents concern that articles X and XI will require technology that will assist other countries to develop offensive chemical weapons programs. Exchanges of sensitive technology and information provided under terms of both articles would be legally bound by the fundamental obligation of treaty article I, which obligates parties never to ``* * * assist encourage, or induce, in any, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State party under this convention.'' This would ban assisting anyone in acquiring a chemical weapons capability. I strongly urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in voting to strike this condition. CWC condition No. 33 would prohibit the United States from ratifying the CWC until the President can certify high confidence U.S. capabilities to detect within 1 year of a violation, the illicit production or storage of one metric ton of chemical agent. Since this is an unachievable standard for monitoring the treaty, this is a killer condition that would permanently bar U.S. participation in the CWC. Mr. President, no one can deny that some aspects of the CWC will be difficult to verify, nor can anyone affirm that any arms control agreement is 100 percent verifiable. And, as Gen. Edward Rowny, who was special adviser to Presidents Reagan and Bush, pointed out in the Washington Post any chemical weapons treaty is inherently more difficult to verify than a strategic arms treaty, under which missiles and bombers can be observed by national technical means. For one thing, chemical weapons can literally be produced in thousands of large and small laboratories around the world. But the bottom line is one made succinctly and clearly by General Rowny: ``If we are within the CWC, well-trained and experienced American inspectors, employing an agreed set of procedures, intensive procedures, will have an opportunity to catch violaters. Outside the CWC, no such opportunity will exist.'' I couldn't agree more. As in many other matters, the perfect is not only unattainable but is also the enemy of the good. I hope than many of my colleagues will see this issue in the same light and will join me in voting to strike condition No. 33. In conclusion, I want to stress that America has always been a leader in international arms negotiations. America should continue this proud tradition of leading the way. We as a nation have the opportunity to be one of the world's leading guardians of the peace through the application of this treaty; we can participate in safeguarding our armed forces, our citizens, our children from the horrors of chemical weapons; we can lessen the likelihood of chemical weapons being used again in warfare. But to make all this possible, we must have the perspicacity and foresight to grab this fleeting opportunity, this historic moment where we decide to join with other nations to improve the quality of life worldwide and assure a safer, saner world. We have just celebrated Earth Day--and I ask what better way to honor our planet is there than by now ratifying a treaty that will protect and safeguard her people? Mr. President, there is not a lot of time to go through such an important issue, but I thought I would just draw from some very poignant and personal discussion back in Minnesota that we have had with gulf war veterans. To quote one of the veterans who himself is really struggling with illness which he thinks is based upon some exposure to chemicals during his service in the war, he said, ``This is my plea. Please get everyone to stop using this junk.'' I really do think that the more I talk to veterans with their service in the gulf war fresh in their mind, many of whom are ill, many of whom are struggling with illness, who were fine before they served in the war and are not now and want to know what has happened to them, there are two different issues. I have the honor of being on both the Veterans' Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. One, on the Veterans' Committee, is to get to the bottom of this and make sure veterans get the care they deserve. But the other is when we have such an important treaty, such a historically important agreement which is in the national interest, which is verifiable and which contributes to world peace and helps us get rid of this junk and is so important not only to our soldiers-to-be but also to children and grandchildren, Mr. President, I do not think there is any more important vote that we can make than one of majority support for the Chemical Weapons Convention. In my State of Minnesota, I know that people are overwhelmingly for this agreement. People are under no illusion. They do not think it is perfect, but they think it is an enormous step forward for all of humankind, an enormous step forward for people in our country, an enormous step forward for people in other countries as well. Since the United States of America has taken a leadership position in the international community, in the international arena, it would be, I think, nothing short of tragic if we now were on the sidelines, if we were not involved in the implementation of this agreement, if we were not involved in exerting our leadership in behalf of this agreement. I urge full support for this agreement, and I really do think I speak for a large, engaged majority in Minnesota. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a congressional fellow from my office, Ashley Tessmer, be allowed in the Chamber during the Chemical Weapons Convention debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am going to in a short period of time offer two amendments which I hope will be really noncontroversial. I just would like to talk about both of them in general terms and then I will come back in time to offer these amendments. One of these amendments has to do with what I think is, unfortunately, very germane and it has to do with our failure still to provide the kind of mental health services, the kind of mental health coverage that is so direly needed. I know my colleagues have said one of the things that concerns them and concerns others is that all too often some of the people who take their lives are people in a severe state of depression, people who have not been treated. And then, of course, you really wonder whether or not this ever should have happened and this is the last thing you would like to see assisted. So I really feel that if, in fact, we are saying we do not want to see this kind of assisted, physician-assisted suicide, or people taking their lives, that is to say, then I think we really want to make sure we do not get to the point where some people, some who really want to take their lives are taking their lives not even necessarily because they are in terrible pain with a terrible illness but having more to do with a terrible mental illness. This is an amendment we will come to in a little while. The first amendment that I will offer shortly is an amendment which says it is the sense of the Senate that the Senate supports firm but fair work requirements for low-income unemployed individuals. I do not think my colleagues would disagree with that. And low-income workers who are jobless but are unable to find a job should look for work, they should participate in workfare or job training programs but they should not be denied food stamps without these opportunities. Again, I am just waiting for response from a couple other Senators before I introduce these amendments, but just in very broad outline the why of this amendment. I am going to draw from a study which comes out from the Department of Agriculture February 13, 1997, which really points to the characteristics of childless unemployed adult food stamp and legal immigrant food stamp participants. Madam President, this is not a pretty picture. We are talking about the poorest of poor people. If we are going to have vehicles out in the Chamber and there is going to be an opportunity--and these are just sense-of-the-Senate amendments--to really try and get the Senate on record to correct some problems that have to be corrected, then I want to take full advantage of it. In this particular case, we are talking about people who are very poor, many of them women, many of them minorities. What we are saying is, yes, work, but if there is not a workfare program available and someone cannot find a job, then do not cut people off food stamp assistance, do not say that in a 3-year period you can only get 3 months' worth of food stamp assistance. Why in the world would we want to create the very situation we are now creating which is you are basically taking the most vulnerable citizens, the poorest of poor people and you are putting them in a situation where they want to work, they cannot find a job, there is not a workfare program available, there is not a job training program available, they are suffering, struggling with HIV infection or dying from AIDS, they are struggling with mental illness, they did not even have a high school education, there are no opportunities for the training, and we are now saying that we are going to cut you off food stamp assistance. This was the harshest provision of the welfare bill that we passed. And so, Madam President, I come to the floor, and I will in a moment suggest the absence of a quorum just for a moment and then we will move forward with both of these amendments. But I come to the floor to introduce both of these amendments. These are sense-of-the-Senate amendments. I hope they will command widespread support. I say to my colleagues I am really hopeful for a very strong vote. I know they are anxious to have the bill come through. I do not think these amendments--I made them sense-of-the-Senate amendments. I think the language is very reasonable, and I do not mean to hold up the legislation at all, but on the other hand I do mean to get some attention focused on some areas that we really need to address. Madam President, just for a moment, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Margaret Heldring have the privilege of the floor during the debate on this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be made a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 30

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back our time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I came to the floor of the Senate today to try to make sure that we make a commitment, albeit a preliminary commitment. I will read the operative language. ``* * * take steps to ensure that elderly and disabled legal immigrants who are unable to work, will not be left without Federal assistance essential to their well-being.'' I believe that, ``It is the sense of the Senate that elderly and disabled legal immigrants who are unable to work should receive assistance essential to their well-being, and that the President, Congress, the States, and faith-based and other organizations should continue to work together toward that end,'' is in the same spirit. We are going to have to define this with concrete language and with a decision made about investment of resources. I think it is an important step forward. I thank my colleague from Alaska. I would be pleased if we could have a voice vote if that is what my colleague wants to do.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Before I go forward with the second amendment that I think is next in order, previously agreed to, I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum just for a few minutes, no more than 5 minutes, and then I will be ready to offer that amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum without it being charged to either side.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield the final 7 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.