Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I probably only have a couple of minutes left. Let me thank the Senator from Oregon and also, again, my colleague from Alaska. I do think this is a logical extension of what the Senator from Oregon had done in committee. I do think, again, what we want to make sure of is that there is enough funding, and, of course, we are talking about setting standards by the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy will be involved in it. We want to make sure, in fact, those standards have been met. I would like to thank the National Association of Firefighters and the firefighters of Minnesota. What they have said is, ``Look, we want to make sure you have some kind of process, some kind of fail-safe mechanism to make sure we are adequately trained to deal with this disaster.'' That is what this amendment does. It holds someone accountable--the Department of Energy. It says the Department of Energy is going to make a preliminary determination, whatever the operative language is, that, in fact, before we have the actual transportation of this highly radioactive nuclear waste material, that the local personnel, firefighters, and others, are ready, trained and equipped to deal with an emergency if they have to do so. I am very pleased that my colleagues have accepted the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I see. Mr. President, I do not need time to confer with my colleague from Alaska on that. I am pleased that he is willing to do so. We do not need a vote on it if the Senator from Alaska will accept this amendment. I have some additional time. Maybe my colleague from Oregon, who has done so much work on this, might want to speak on this amendment for a moment. Does the Senator from Oregon want to speak for a moment on this?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to again suggest the absence of a quorum for a moment. My concern is--I have no reason to doubt the good work of my colleague from Alaska--but I sometimes have not fared so well in conference committee, and I am a little worried about it. I have to make a decision. I think it would take unanimous consent to do it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I understand I had been clear with colleagues from Nevada about this amendment. I always--my own people have their own goals here. I really do believe something has to be done. The Federal Government has made a commitment and I want to see the Federal Government live up to it. What I was trying to do in this amendment is to assure the safety and security of the shipments. I understand why my colleagues have taken the position they have taken. I say to the Senator from Alaska that I do think the change that we proposed on preliminary determination makes good sense. I am sorry we cannot do this. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator from Oregon is not ready, I wonder whether or not I could, just for a moment, call for a quorum call that would not be charged to either side so we might be able to discuss this. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me thank the Senator from Alaska. I have some ideas about how we might do that. I wonder whether I might yield some of my time to the Senator from Oregon. While he is speaking, the two of us might talk this over.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the rest of my time to respond to my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, what the firefighters are saying is, look, you are going to have $150,000 which is going to be offered by each State that is to be affected by this along this transportation route but the question we are asking, says the firefighters, is how do we know that in 2 years or 5 years we are going to be ready? We want to make sure there is enough funding for our training, and we want to make sure we are adequately prepared for this because it is our responsibility to protect the citizens in our communities. I am told that the International Association of Firefighters, which represents 95 percent of professional firefighters in the United States, did a survey of departments along a potential test shipping route in Ohio, and they found that 40 percent of the departments along the route were not prepared, according to current standards, to deal with hazardous material accidents. Let us face it. When it comes to hazardous material and when it comes to highly radioactive nuclear waste, we are going to try, whether it be by rail or road, to go in the less populated of our rural areas. And by the way, all too often, people in rural America are familiar with the saying let's go where fewer people live, but they say there may be fewer of us but we count as much as anybody living in any metropolitan area. We are also hearing from a lot of communities: We are worried that we are not going to be trained; we don't feel we are even ready when it comes to the transportation of hazardous materials. So, Mr. President, let us assume the grants have been made and a State takes advantage of these funds. Two years pass and shipments of nuclear waste begin to pass through the State. What guarantee do we have that local fire departments are fully trained and equipped and that if the worst thing possible happens, they can respond in such a way as to minimize disaster. What this amendment says is that the Department of Energy must determine--in other words, we talked about training. We have talked about some grants, but nowhere in this piece of legislation do we have the fail-safe, ironclad guarantee that as a matter of fact these local fire departments, these local emergency response personnel will have received adequate training. This amendment proposes that the Department of Energy must determine that emergency response personnel along the routes where over 16,000 shipments of highly radioactive waste will pass have met an acceptable standard of training before these shipments begin. That is all this amendment says. Again, what we want to do is to verify that these brave men and women--they are asking this. They are going to be on the frontline, the first line of response to an accident, people who are going to be putting their lives on the line--in fact have received the training they need. This amendment says that no shipments will occur until the Department of Energy has determined that the emergency response personnel in all jurisdictions along a given shipping route will have met an acceptable level of training. It seems to me that is very reasonable. I think this is a logical extension of the Wyden amendment in committee. Yes, we have some funding, although we do not know whether it is going to be enough. Most communities do not think it is. Yes, we have some training standards. But what we are saying is we have to make sure, above and beyond some funding and some standards for acceptable levels of training, that level of training is met before any deadly cargo under this bill hits the road. In other words, no training, no shipments. That is a pretty reasonable amendment. This bill in its current form calls for training standards to be established by the Department of Transportation, but I am concerned that the bill is ambiguous at best about who is really responsible for making sure these standards are met. That is what this amendment speaks to. By requiring the Secretary of the Department of Energy to determine that every jurisdiction has met the standards, this amendment holds the processor of the waste responsible for making sure all safety precautions have been taken. If requiring a determination by the DOE just simply adds one additional signoff to this process, then I say this makes all the sense in the world. One more time. What we have is a situation where we are going to be talking about the shipment of highly radioactive nuclear waste. This is of a different order than hazardous material. We have the firefighters and other people who are concerned about this living in the local communities saying we are worried about whether or not we are going to receive adequate funding for training and whether or not we are in fact going to be trained. There is some funding. I do not think it is going to be enough. We do not want this to become an unfunded mandate. And there is some setting of the level of standards by the Department of Transportation but nowhere in this legislation do we have a clear line of accountability that as a matter of fact firefighters and other local safety personnel will be trained to deal with a crisis if they have to do so. It seems to me that the very least we can do is to make sure that happens. Let me simply conclude by quoting the last part of this letter from the International Association of Firefighters: Put quite simply, America's emergency responders are not equipped to deal with an incident along the routes to the Yucca Mountain facility. If an incident were to occur, whether it is an accident or terrorist act, lives would be unnecessarily lost because the local emergency response personnel lack the necessary training and equipment to effectively respond. All this amendment does is say let us make sure, Department of Energy, you are accountable; you have to make a determination that before we ship this waste, the local fire departments, the local safety personnel have, in fact, received the training and they are equipped to deal with, if, God forbid, there is, a serious accident. I believe this amendment should be accepted. It is imminently reasonable, and it seems to me we ought to take every step necessary to make sure we guarantee the safety and security of people in our communities. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Senate now consider amendment No. 29. My understanding is that we have an hour on this amendment to be equally divided.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I welcome my colleague, Senator Murkowski from Alaska. Amendment No. 29 to Amendment No. 26

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am going to for a moment, until the Senator from Alaska comes, suggest the absence of a quorum because the Senator is not here. In order to have debate, it is important that he be here, and I do not want to go forward with an amendment and not give him an opportunity to respond. So for a brief period of time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me start out by giving some context to this amendment. I feel strongly that the Federal Government should live up to its obligation to take possession of nuclear waste. That is my framework. I am with this amendment not operating outside of that framework. I also add that Minnesotans and other customers of nuclear power have been paying into a nuclear waste fund over the years, and the reason was and the understanding is that the Federal Government would make this commitment and live up to this commitment. That part of this legislation, that premise, I fully support. Mr. President, I have been concerned in the past--and still am although I don't have an amendment today that deals with this--about what happens when the Federal Government actually takes title under this bill because I do think that over the years you are going to have a huge taxpayer liability. So while I want the Federal Government to be responsible and live up to its national commitment to do something about it, I worry about the transfer of over 10,000 years all of a sudden to the taxpayers. The GAO has estimated that the taxpayers' future burden could be about $77 billion. This is assuming a 100-year program. But we are talking about a program of nuclear waste that is over thousands of years. Mr. President, concerns about this legislation. First of all, the legislation still attempts to skirt some of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. There is a reason for that piece of legislation, and I do think, when you are talking about the transport of highly radioactive nuclear waste material, this is a time, if there ever was a time, when you want to have full environmental review, when you want to be absolutely certain that you are talking about the transportation of this kind of material taking into full account the health and safety and protection of families all across the country. My esteemed colleagues from Nevada have discussed some of the risks and problems associated with transporting highly radioactive nuclear waste in their struggle against this bill. They also feel that Nevada has been unfairly singled out, and I respect them for that. My framework is a little different. But I do want to point out there are going to be some 16,000 shipments on our highways and our railways over the coming years. We are talking about some significant distance traveled. There are legitimate concerns that people have about the transportation of this highly radioactive nuclear waste material; people are going to be concerned about it, and in addition there is some debate about whether or not the containers themselves are safe. We already transport hazardous materials, but I want to argue there is a significant difference when we are talking about nuclear waste material, especially highly radioactive nuclear waste. Consider it this way. If you have an accident involving nuclear waste as opposed to many hazardous wastes, you can have a dramatically different outcome. Radiation, without doubt, kills people, and it is a different scale we are talking about. God forbid--worst case scenario--we have an accident. We have to do everything we can to guard against that accident. We could be talking about something catastrophic. We cannot afford to have such an accident in our country which results in this kind of radiation leak that could have such dire consequences for people, such dire consequences for our families, and therefore I think we have to do everything possible to assure safety. That is what this amendment is about. Now, this bill calls for a transportation planning process, and I note--and I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska--that part of the amendment I proposed last week calling for more public participation has been incorporated. That is to say, there is some language about public comment when it comes to these plans. But in Minnesota we currently have 641 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. That is a conservative estimate. And by the year 2014 we expect there will be around 987 metric tons, all of which will travel the roads and rails of Minnesota and States between us and Nevada, if this bill succeeds. So I think we have to do everything possible to ensure the safety and security of these shipments, and I would add that I think to talk about public comment really does not go far enough. Initially, our amendment said that in the actual planning process, as you chart out the routes, those citizens who are affected by the transportation of this material ought to be able to be involved in the planning process, as should local officials. They should at least be consulted. I did not say they would have a veto because I know that would not work. But I did talk about consultation. I did talk about involving citizens who will be affected, who are going to be worried about themselves and their families, and local officials who are going to be worried, I talked about involving them in a more integral and real and substantive way in the planning process. I wish that amendment had been accepted. My friends from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, and from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, have made sure that this legislation really does take some steps forward from the last bill. Grants can be provided for training, and in addition there are going to be training standards which are going to be set. I still think, again, that we have to do everything possible to ensure the safety of these shipments. We have to do everything possible, leave no stone unturned, in making sure that we prevent the worst case scenario, which could be a nightmare scenario for our country. If we do not do that, we are going to be asking ourselves, when such an accident takes place, did we do everything possible when we transported this poisonous waste all across America. The brave men and women who are likely to be first on the scene when an accident occurs, local firefighters, do not support this bill because they believe it inadequately provides for their needs such as the training, funding, and technical assistance. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the International Association of Firefighters be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me start off by reading a March 19, 1997, article in the New York Times about Luz Gross, 88 years old, a widow who resides in New York City. She is from the Dominican Republic and is suffering from severe Alzheimer's. When asked when she was born, Mrs. Gross says, ``When I came to the United States, I wasn't born.'' Asked if she wanted to become a citizen, she began talking about her childhood when she lived close to the sea in Santo Domingo. Mrs. Gross' only child Felix is 72 himself, retired and living on $10,320 a year from Social Security and a small union pension earned after working 18 years as a building handyman in Manhattan. He visits his mother every day repairing whatever breaks in her apartment and watching television with her. But he said he cannot afford to support her, and there is no room for her to live in his small one-bedroom apartment. ``I feel in denial,'' he said. ``I can't believe this is happening.'' Mr. President, Nouphanh is 65 years old, and she has been in the United States since 1984. Before she left Laos, she had no access to education because her parents moved from place to place to get away from the war. She does not understand English and has no family here. She is alone. She is on disability income, $484 a month, and she lives in a housing project. She is severely depressed and currently undergoing treatment. She says, ``Sometimes in this country I feel like I am deaf, I am blind, I am mute, because I cannot learn English.'' Every day she lives in fear, and every day she asks herself what will happen to her if she does not have SSI and food stamps. Mr. President, let me, one more time, bring to the attention of my colleagues this amendment. I am hoping for a good, strong, positive vote. It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should 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. Mr. President, I said it earlier before my colleague arrived. The reason that I bring this sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the floor of the U.S. Senate today is because I think we are confronted with the fierce urgency of now--Arizona being one good example of one State in the country--we have all heard from legal immigrants and we have all heard from 80-year-old women living alone, and partially disabled. They have received letters. They are now, as a result of the legislation we passed last year, going to be cut off assistance. They are terrified. They live in fear. I said earlier, and I am not being melodramatic, I was a community organizer for 20 years before I was fortunate enough to become a U.S. Senator from Minnesota. I have worked with lots of people who have been struggling with lots of different issues, many of them very poor, and I have never in my whole life seen people with such fear in their faces. I have never seen people so terrified. Mr. President, what in God's name does eliminating supplemental security income and food nutrition assistance for an 80-year-old Hmong woman, partially disabled, living alone in Minnesota have to do with reform? It is not reform. It is unconscionable. It is shameful. Mr. President, I said earlier I am going to have a chance to speak at a rally this afternoon, going on right now, organized by groups and organizations that have worked with Soviet Jewry over the years. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution in Russia. Maybe that is why I feel so strongly about this. But, Mr. President, it is not just Jewish immigrants from Russia or Eastern Europe; it is legal immigrants, people who have come to our country, many of whom have worked and paid taxes. There have been reports by the Urban Institute and others that show that these legal immigrants have given much more to our country in taxes than any benefit that they have ever received. Mr. President, last Congress we passed a piece of legislation, all in the name of deficit reduction, that eliminated $22 billion worth of assistance to these vulnerable citizens. Mr. President, it was easy to do. They are among the most vulnerable citizens in this country with the least amount of political power and, therefore, we chose to make the cuts there. But, Mr. President, I think there is goodness--I am sorry--in my colleagues. I think we did not realize what we were doing. That happens often. I have voted for legislation for which I did not fully understand all of the consequences, and later on I changed my mind. Please, let us change our minds. We are hearing from our Governors, Mr. President. We are hearing from our mayors. We are hearing from our county officials. They are all saying, ``Wait a minute. These people, by definition, on supplemental security income are not going to make it to self-sufficiency.'' By definition we are talking about people who are either very elderly or people who are disabled and people who need the support. Mr. President, at one of many community meetings I attended in Minnesota there was a man who came up to me who was a Hmong. He fought on our side during the Vietnam war. He has--I know this is hard to believe; but it is true--he has one bullet still in his brain and one bullet still in his knee. He is disabled. We are going to eliminate his supplemental security income assistance. What does that have to do with reform? Mr. President, I was at a gathering on the west side of St. Paul. I will never forget it. It sent chills down my spine. A woman came up to me. I thought that she was 80. She was bent over. Certainly she looked every bit 80 years of age. She came up to me, and her hands were shaking, and she began to wail. That was the kind of crying that she was doing. She began to wail. And she had in her hands a picture of her husband, and then I realized he was my age and, therefore, she was probably about my age. Her husband fought in the Vietnam war. Again, she was a Hmong who came over to our country. We have a large Hmong community in Minnesota. Her husband apparently had just passed away about a month earlier. Mr. President, this woman is not going to learn our language. She is not going to become a citizen. But these people fought the war in Indochina. They came to our country. We made a commitment that there would be some assistance for them. She has nowhere to go. She has nowhere to go. What I hated about that community meeting, and what I hate about all of these meetings, is that I keep thinking to myself, people really think that as a Senator from Minnesota I can change this. It scares me, because I am afraid we will not do anything at all. Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is an amendment that I think all of my colleagues can vote for. It does not specify a course of action that we should take. But it at least gives the religious community, all of the legal immigrants, and many local officials who feel like we are dumping the cost on them some assurances. Much less it gives us some reassurance that we have rediscovered part of our soul again if we would at least go on record saying it is the sense of the Senate that Congress should 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. Mr. President, I think it would be a very important statement for us to make. I think this is a very important position for us to take. We are heading into the budget negotiations. We are hearing from people in our States. We are hearing from people in the country. And that is why I come to the floor of the Senate. I told that Hmong woman, who was about 50 years of age, though she looked like she was going on 80--she has had such a difficult life, holding the picture of her husband, no longer alive, who served on our side during the war in Vietnam--I told her, through a translator, because she does not speak English, all these people who have come to these community meetings, that although I did not know whether I would win or not, I would come to the floor and fight for people. This is just the beginning of this effort. I am lucky to have a strong colleague, Luis Gutierrez, in the House who is pushing very hard. I am really hoping Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, will accept this amendment or will vote for this amendment. It is time that we correct this. We did the wrong thing, colleagues. You may not agree with me on all issues, and I know quite often you do not, but we did the wrong thing. These are people that we should not literally throw out in the cold. These are people who really need this assistance. These are some very good people. These are, for many of us, our parents or our grandparents. Mr. President, we have to do something. We have to take some corrective action, and this amendment, I think, is the beginning of our doing that. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Senate now consider amendment No. 30.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, if he would be gracious enough to give me 2 more minutes, I will be ready with the second amendment. I have looked at the second-degree amendment, and I think we will be able to work together. If I could have 2 more minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time not to be charged to either side.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I wanted to call the attention of my colleagues and the people in the country to what I think is an important gathering here in the Nation's Capital. It is a gathering which focuses on the elimination of assistance for legal immigrants. The sponsors of this gathering have done over the years a great deal of work with the Soviet Jewry, and I guess we can now say Russia and other republics. And, of course, they are concerned about legal immigrants-- Jews that have come from Russia or the other new republics, many of whom are elderly, many of whom have meager resources, and many of whom now as a result of action taken last Congress in the welfare bill will be without supplementary security income assistance and will be without food nutrition assistance. What is important about this gathering, this rally, that is now taking place is that the sponsors have made it very clear that they don't want to focus just on Jews who have come to our country or who have fled persecution, but really on legal immigrants across the board from many different nations. The message of this rally, I think, is that we are a nation of proud immigrants. We are talking about many of our parents and many of our grandparents. In my case we are talking about my father who fled persecution from Russia. It really is shameful what we did, which I think was an overreach, which I hope we will rectify this Congress--I think we must--which is that we eliminated assistance to many people. As Mayor Giuliani said, by definition people who are receiving supplementary security income assistance or food nutrition assistance because they are so low income and poor really need this help. So what we are now faced with is a situation in our country where over 500,000 legal immigrants are going to be cut off supplementary security income and over 1 million are going to be cut off from any food stamp assistance. In the State of Minnesota about 35,000 legal immigrants are going to be cut off SSI and about 15,000 off food stamps. This rally is the first of many gatherings. I think we are going to see it all across the country, and it is going to be a combination of people who are scared to death. They are elderly, they are disabled, they can't work, and really all of the assistance is going to be cut off. The question is, What happens to them? The religious community is involved. Our county organizations are involved. Mayors are involved. Many Governors are now getting involved. I want to say to colleagues that as a matter of what is right, as a matter of elementary justice, as a matter of compassion, as a matter of considering our own tradition, our own roots, our own heritage, we have to restore this funding. It is simply unconscionable. It really is shameful what we did last Congress. I hope that we will make this a huge priority when we go forward with our budget. Otherwise, we are going to see a lot of vulnerable people who came to our country, who have worked, who have paid their taxes, who were legal immigrants, who maybe have an income total of $525 a month, and they are going to see almost all of that assistance eliminated. The question becomes, What happens to these people? That is the question I have for my colleagues. What happens to these people? Are we willing to be so generous with the suffering of others? I don't think we can just insulate ourselves here and act as if this isn't happening around the country. People have now received letters that have notified them that they are going to be cut off; that this assistance which has been a lifeline of assistance is going to be eliminated. I will tell you something. In my adult life--and this is not an exaggeration--I don't think I have ever seen people so frightened. I have never met with a group of citizens nor have I have ever met with a group of people who are more frightened. I have never seen such fear in the faces of people. I cannot believe that we don't have enough goodness inside of us, enough compassion here to really fix this problem, change the course, and make sure that we provide some assistance to many people in our country who deserve our assistance.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I shall be brief and then go on with the amendment as soon as my colleague is here.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I wonder whether I might, before I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the Senate now consider amendment No. 29--I am actually waiting for my colleague Senator Murkowski from Alaska, under courtesy--I wonder whether I might ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for 3 or 4 minutes on another matter without this counting against my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the President has now declared a major disaster in my home State, Minnesota, and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in areas hard hit by severe flooding, severe winter storms, snow melt, high winds, rain and ice. And this all continues. The declaration will make funds available for grants, disaster housing and low-interest loans to cover uninsured damaged property and other aid to help residents, businesses and local governments cope with ongoing storm and flood damage. I am pleased by the swift action taken by the emergency management division of the Department of Public Safety in Minnesota. Jim Franklin and his hard-working staff, very hard-working staff are to be commended for their efforts. I am very pleased with the action taken by the Federal Government as well. I think James Lee Witt is one of the greatest employments ever made by any President. He has been so responsive to all of us in this country when citizens in our States are faced with these very difficult and painful crises. I do not think crisis is an exaggeration. I am also really pleased with the way in which SBA, the Small Business Administration, has been so responsive. Today, I will be requesting $50 million in additional energy assistance, the LIHEAP program, to help families who will soon be returning to their homes only to find their heating systems have been damaged. These are individuals with low income, many of them elderly, many of them families with children, who, because of the severe cold we have had all winter, have already had a very difficult time paying their heating bills. This aid is desperately needed. Many waterways in our State are already at record water levels. The Minnesota River is threatening to totally overrun many cities along its border. Record flood conditions are being predicted along the Red River, which is expected to crest within the next few days. Along the Red River there are still ice and snowpacks which will be melting in the coming days and weeks, further threatening communities already under siege in northwestern Minnesota, and flood conditions continue to build along the Mississippi River as well, cresting any day now. Some communities have already been hit and are under water and ice. In the town of Ada, nearly all the 1,000 residents have been forced to evacuate, including residents of a nursing home who had to be rescued by the National Guard. And, thank you, National Guard, for all of your fine work. Many of these people had little or no time to pack their belongings before fleeing. And when they return, little will likely be salvageable. In Appleton, ice floe broke through the levee, and the river now has surged 21.5 feet in one-half hour, forcing a massive volunteer effort to halt the flow of surging water and further prevent housing damage. The Pomme de Terre River--let me repeat that--has surged 21.5 feet in just one-half hour. The record flooding and cold temperatures have had a major impact on Minnesota. There have been widespread power outages throughout parts of the State, and with the flooding and the cold, emergency repair crews are unable to get to the affected areas. Many farmers are having trouble farming, and it is going to be a very, very difficult spring planting season. I am very pleased, again, that FEMA Director James Lee Witt has done so much and will be coming to Minnesota to see firsthand the devastation. I believe he will be coming to South Dakota and North Dakota as well. As a Senator from Minnesota, I express my sympathy to Senators from the Dakotas. Of course, we will all work together. I have been touched by the sense of community among many people in Minnesota. Many folks do not care who they are working next to as long as they are working for their communities. People are working tirelessly, around the clock, to hold back the river. Neighbors are standing shoulder to shoulder, sandbagging. Volunteers are tirelessly serving sandwiches and hot coffee at fire stations. When I was in Montevideo last week, it was just amazing. People who live on the high ground, they don't ever have to worry about the flood; they are out there, I mean really working to the point of exhaustion, sandbagging for others. High school students, I say to the pages, have volunteered their time, and they are doing a great job. That is the good news. The good news is the goodness of people in Minnesota. The good news is all the ways in which people are working together--I might add, to my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans, and others. The good news is the voluntarism of young people. The bad news is that in all too many communities, it really looks like a war zone. The weeks and months ahead will include many more hours of hard work, cleanup, removal of sandbags, restoration of buildings, and ensuring that water supplies are not contaminated. People need not only the support of their neighbors, they need the support that only the Federal Government can provide. It is interesting. Colleagues, Republicans and Democrats from other States, during the years I have been here in the Senate, have come to the floor and spoken about what citizens in their States have been confronted with. I think all of us are sympathetic and all of us try to provide the support. I thank President Clinton for his very prompt response. I thank my colleagues in advance for the support I know they will give. I thank colleagues who have come up to me in the last couple of days and have asked me, how are people doing? What can we do to help? I am really proud--it is not a politician speaking--I am just really proud of people in Minnesota. I wish people did not have to go through this. I am emotional about it. I am really emotional about it. I just wish this was not happening, but it is, and it is so important that all of us at the Federal level try to provide assistance to people in communities not just in Minnesota but around the country when they are faced with these kinds of disasters. This really is a disaster. I look forward to getting back home as soon as possible this weekend. I look forward to James Lee Witt and others coming to visit Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and other States that are going to need the help. People really need the help. People really need the help, and we have to make sure we provide it. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.