Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, most of the time that I am on the floor I do not really use notes, or at least I do not use notes extensively. I think today what I want to try to do is read what I think is a kind of brief that I want to argue for this amendment. Most of the debate on S. 1936 will be about the environmental policy ramifications of the bill. I know we will learn a great deal about that today. While these are important points--I view them as very important points--there is another very significant part of this debate. I am referring to the implications of this bill for the taxpayers, particularly future taxpayers. I hope that if my colleagues are not able to listen to the statement, that their staffs will and that these words will be given serious consideration. As you will soon see, this bill would perpetuate a flawed policy that has set up the future taxpayers of America, I fear, for a potentially infinite liability. Mr. President, section 302 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, subsection (a), paragraph 4, states what has long been accepted as nuclear waste policy, that nuclear utilities shall pay a fee into a fund to ``ensure full cost recovery'' for costs associated with the nuclear waste program. Indeed, an earlier version of this very bill, introduced as S. 1271, recited in its findings section the same basic premise: ``While the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the centralized interim storage and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect the public health and safety and the environment''--I agree with that-- ``the cost of such storage and disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuels.'' Mr. President, once you understand that simple basic and longstanding premise, you cannot help but be confused by the policy we have been pursuing for years and which is strengthened in the bill before us. That policy is to provide for the transfer of title to high-level nuclear waste from the utility to the taxpayer. Mr. President, could I have order in the Chamber? I would appreciate it if you would ask the discussion to be off the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, if the industry and DOE are correct, and the fund is sufficient, there would be no shortfall and there would be no damages; is that correct? The estimates of the industry is that the fund is sufficient, and if that is the case, there would be no shortfall and therefore there would be no damages. If, in fact, there were damages--let me just ask the Senator to respond to the first question.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 5037.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak, too, to the people of Minnesota, but will speak first of all to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. But Senator, by the very estimates you have made, by the very estimates that the utility companies have made, there would be no damages because you have said that the fund is sufficient. So there would be no damages.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, earlier tonight, at the time of our last vote, I was notified that we had an agreement--and let us call it kind of a code of honor--that Ann Montgomery, a very fine judge, who will be a great judge on the Federal district court in Minnesota, would be confirmed here tonight in the Senate. Mr. President, for really many, many months now, picking up with intensity in the last several months and the last several weeks, I have been in intensive discussions with the majority leader, whom I think has been operating in very good faith. I felt as if I had received a very firm commitment from him--I believe his word is his bond--that while there had been some ``soft hold'' put on Judge Montgomery, actually at the beginning of this week or by the middle of this week-- it was to be tonight--we would move her nomination forward. Mr. President, much to my amazement, after we had an agreement with a clear understanding that this would happen, at the last second one of my colleagues, the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, objects. And when the minority leader, Senator Daschle, asks her why, there is no response at all. Mr. President, let me just say that it is my firm hope that tomorrow we will have this resolved, and if a Senator has a ``soft hold'' on Judge Montgomery, then we should--and I certainly hope the majority leader will do this. I feel as if he had made the commitment to move this nomination forward. Then let us move this forward for a vote. I did not ask for unanimous consent. If we need to have a vote, I would be pleased to debate with any Senator the merits of this nomination. Judge Montgomery has received just outstanding support and unbelievable recommendations from across the broadest possible spectrum of the legal community; support from myself and support from my colleague, Senator Grams from Minnesota. So, Mr. President, let me just be crystal clear about it. What is so unfortunate is that here you have a fine judge who has been waiting to be district judge, has been waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting. I was just, I say to my colleague from Iowa, picking up the phone to call her. I had just dialed it to say, ``I want you to know the long wait is over. Tonight will be the night. Tell your family. Tell your children.'' This is outrageous. And I would appreciate it if my colleagues would have the courage to simply defend whatever positions they take, not just announce a hold at the last second and then have nothing to say. Mr. President, I am confident that we will resolve this. I believe the majority leader has given me his word. I think his word is good. I know it is good. But I have to say to my colleagues, whomever they are--I know it is not the Senator from Iowa--if you have a soft hold and you want to keep it anonymous, that is one of the procedures that is so outrageous to people in the country. We will just move this forward, and we will have debate, and we will have a vote. Mr. President, I am really disappointed for Judge Montgomery tonight. I am absolutely determined that this will be resolved by the end of this week. I will do everything I can as a Senator from Minnesota, will use every bit of knowledge that I know about this process and this Senate, and every bit of leverage I have to make sure that this eminently qualified woman becomes a U.S. district court judge. I hope we can work in the spirit of collegiality. I certainly did not see that tonight. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me be quite brief because I know we are going to a final vote. One of the more exciting developments for rural America are biomass rural electricity projects. I was in Granite Falls, MN, yesterday, and the high school auditorium was filled with citizens excited about a project with the alfalfa producers co-op. This is biomass rural electricity. This is a value-added, farmer-owned co- op. This is rural economic development. This is environmentally sound. This is new products for agriculture. It is renewable energy. The question I ask the managers of the bill is, will these projects be eligible for consideration for funding in fiscal 1997 out of the funds provided? My concern, as the Senator from Minnesota, is that, as a matter of fact, these kinds of projects, based upon this renewable energy policy, based upon this concern about the environment and rural economic development, will be eligible for funding. So my question, one more time, is whether or not these projects will be eligible for consideration of funding in fiscal 1997 out of the funds provided.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 5122

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Lieberman for his initiative in once again calling to the Senate's attention to the problem of the continued freedom of indicted war criminals in the former Yugoslavia, by offering this amendment to the Foreign Operations bill expressing support for the efforts of the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague. Although I have some questions and concerns about how certain portions of this amendment would be implemented, especially with respect to the NATO-led Implementation Force's (IFOR) detention of indicted war criminals, I support the part of this amendment which calls for reimposition of economic sanctions on the so-called Republika Srpska and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unless and until certain war criminals are delivered to the War Crimes Tribunal. For too long, we in the West have allowed these indicted war criminals and their allies to thumb their noses at those who would bring them before the bar of justice. That must not continue. All of the signatories to the Dayton accord agreed to meet certain obligations, one of which was to ensure full and effective implementation of the agreement ``to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law.'' That obligation must be borne squarely by the Federal Government of Yugoslavia. So far, even in the face of recent intense pressure from U.S. Envoy Richard Holbrooke, Milosevic has refused to budge on this question, and to apply sufficient pressure on his Bosnian Serb allies to allow these war criminals to be arrested and brought to the tribunal to face charges. On two separate occasions since July of last year, the International Criminal Tribunal issued indictments for Radovan Karadzic, former President of the Bosnian Serb administration of Pale, and Ratko Mladic, military commander of the Bosnian Serb administration, charging them with genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as numerous other charges outlined in the amendment. Each time, the so-called ``Republika Srpska'' and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have failed to arrest and turn them over for prosecution. Most recently, just 2 weeks ago, the War Crimes Tribunal re-issued international arrest warrants for Karadzic and Mladic, charging them with genocide and other crimes against humanity. This time, the warrants authorized their arrest if they cross any international border, and are again based on substantial credible evidence of their involvement in initiating and/or overseeing some of the worst atrocities of the war. In my view, it is virtually impossible for free and fair national elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina to take place in September as long as key war criminals, including Karadzic and Mladic, remain at large and able to influence political and military developments. Although I acknowledge and commend the effort by Mr. Holbrooke earlier this month which resulted in the agreement to remove Karadzic from office--which hopefully will at least remove him from involvement in the political process once and for all--the fact that Mladic was not subject to this agreement, and that both Mladic and Karadzic remain free and able to influence events there remains a serious problem. As Mr. Holbrooke himself observed, the agreement he was able to reach fell far short of what he was seeking, and far short of the steps necessary to fully comply with the Peace Agreement which the U.S. is seeking. This amendment acknowledges that the Dayton signatories on the Serb side have ignored their key responsibilities, by refusing to bring indicted war criminals to justice, and calls for several steps to force that action. I believe the most prudent course of action is to reinstitute economic sanctions in response to the failure of the signatories of the Peace Agreement to detain these individuals, and convey them to the Hague. That is the most substantial leverage we now have in the West over these people, and it is time to use it. After careful consideration, almost a year ago I supported the participation of U.S. peacekeepers in the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. I did so because I believed then and I believe now that the Dayton Agreement was the best, and probably the last, chance for peace in the region. Although not yet fully implemented, it has proven to be successful in stopping a brutal civil war and given the parties a chance to recover, rebuild their cities and rebuild their nations. But even though we have played a key role in developing and carrying out this agreement, let us not forget one critical thing: this is their agreement, not ours. It was developed by the parties, not imposed by outsiders. They have asked other nations, including the U.S., to help secure the future of that agreement. And by signing the agreement, they assured us, NATO, and the UN Security Council that they will respect its terms. The Serbs have failed to fulfill their commitments on war criminals, and that failure requires a tough response. Bringing indicted war criminals to justice is a centerpiece of the peace process. Continued failure to bring Mladic and Karadzic before the International Criminal Tribunal will seriously hinder the ability of the parties to conduct free and fair elections in September, by allowing these war criminals to remain as the focal point for nationalist fervor and attention, and by allowing them to influence events there. We must increase the pressure on those who would seek to undermine the peaceful future of the former Yugoslavia. This amendment should help, however modestly, to do that. I join Senator Lieberman in his call to support the request of the President of the International Criminal Tribunal to reimpose full economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and on the so- called Republika Srpska, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions. These sanctions should remain in place until Bosnian Serb authorities have fully complied with their obligations under the Dayton accord to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal. For those who take seriously the rule of law, the obligations of justice, and the judgments of history, there is no other responsible alternative but to finally bring these indicted war criminals to justice. amendment no. 5062 (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on the delivery by the People's Republic of China of cruise missiles to Iran) On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following: sense of senate on delivery by china of cruise missiles to iran Sec. 580. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings: (1) On February 22, 1996, the Director of Central Intelligence informed the Senate that the Government of the People's Republic of China had delivered cruise missiles to Iran. (2) On June 19, 1996, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs informed Congress that the Department of State had evidence of Chinese-produced cruise missiles in Iran. (3) On at least three occasions in 1996, including July 15, 1996, the Commander of the United States Fifth Fleet has pointed to the threat posed by Chinese-produced cruise missiles to the 15,000 United States sailors and marines stationed in the Persian Gulf region. (4) Section 1605 of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 (title XVI of Public Law 102-484; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) both requires and authorizes the President to impose sanctions against any foreign government that delivers cruise missiles to Iran. (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should immediately halt the delivery of cruise missiles and other advanced conventional weapons to Iran; to (2) the President should enforce all appropriate United States laws with respect to the delivery by that government of cruise missiles to Iran.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we are here today simply to ask students to sign a pledge declaring that they will never bring a weapon to school, they will not use a weapon to settle disputes, and they will use their influence to prevent their friends from using weapons to settle disputes. Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that homicides and suicides are the leading causes of death for young people in Minnesota's largest county, Hennepin County. For teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19, 77 percent of the homicides involve guns. I am deeply disturbed that juvenile aggravated assaults tripled in Minnesota in the 10 years between 1980 and 1990. Half of these crimes involve guns. I was horrified to find out that, of the 105 school- associated deaths between 1992 and 1994, 75 percent were committed with guns, according to the National School Safety Center. Mr. President, I was dismayed to read in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, ``More children in Minnesota are going to school angry and armed.'' More than 3,700 students reported carrying a gun to school at least once during the month the survey was taken by the Department of Children, Families and Learning. One Minnesota official said that they are ``swimming upstream when it comes to growing violence among young people.'' Every State in the Nation, every school district whether rural, suburban or urban has these kinds of stories, these kinds of statistics. That's why we have got to urge students to sign a pledge declaring that they will never bring a weapon to school, they will not use a weapon to settle disputes, and they will use their influence to prevent their friends from using weapons to settle disputes. Clearly, the pledge is only a small step in preventing gun violence. But we have got to start with changing children's perceptions and helping them avoid crime and violence. If kids are using guns, if kids are bringing guns to school, those are signs of much deeper crises we have got to work hard to address. One effort we have tried with great success is the Safe and Drug Free Schools initiative. This helps schools become safer, more disciplined and drug-free. Parents, teachers, and law enforcement officials tell us it is one of the most effective programs they have seen. However, the extremist Republicans in the House want to spend $99 million less in 1997 nationwide, and $1.08 million less in Minnesota alone, than the President wants to spend to keep schools safe and drug free. Earlier in June, I met with Chuck Anderson. He is a violence intervention trainer at Black Hawk Middle School in Eagan, MN. He has taught since 1970. The program that he coordinates, which is funded under Safe and Drug Free Schools, trains both teachers and students to effectively resolve conflicts in the school as an alternative to disciplinary policy. This program Mr. Anderson directs provides appropriate proactive plans for students to learn means by which to avoid violence and fighting through peaceful intervention. Along with this gun pledge, we have got to support teachers like Chuck Anderson if we truly want to reduce violence in our schools and our society.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the chairman if it is his understanding that this bill should not undermine or contradict the violence against women act?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the people of Minnesota and of the Nation have made it clear that they want a welfare system that helps people make a successful transition from welfare dependency to work. I support that goal. That is why I voted for a workfare proposal with a tough, 5-year time limit on welfare benefits. That workfare proposal would move recipients quickly into jobs, requiring all able-bodied recipients to work and turning welfare offices into employment offices. It would provide adequate resources for child care, recognizing that families can't realistically transition to the workplace unless their kids are being looked after. The bill was called work first because it provided the tools needed to get welfare recipients into jobs and to keep them in the workplace. Unfortunately, work first, the workfare proposal I voted for, did not prevail in the Senate. Instead, we in the Senate are faced with a bill that would punish innocent children. By sending an underfunded block grant to States, this bill would obliterate the already frayed safety net for children. Last year during this debate, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that 1.2 to 1.5 million children would be pushed into poverty by such a welfare reform proposal. About the same number would suffer under this year's plan. The deep cuts in food stamps in this bill would mean that many thousands of children would go hungry. I will not sit back and vote for consigning 1 million children to poverty. I will not be party to actions that mean that there will be more hungry and homeless children in the most prosperous Nation on Earth. Unfortunately, the majority in the Senate did not agree to crucial improvements to the legislation. When I asked that we look at the effect of this legislation on poor children and revisit this legislation after 2 years if we find out that it is pushing more children into poverty, my colleagues turned me down. That was a clear signal to me that the suffering of children is not being taken as seriously as it should be by this Congress. When several Democratic Senators tried to allow States to use their grants to provide vouchers for children's necessities like disperse and clothes after their parents reached the time limits for aid, we were turned down by the majority. When several Democratic Senators tried to place more humane limits on the aid legal immigrants could receive, we were again turned down by the majority. And although we were successful in ensuring that food stamps are not block granted, I continue to have serious concerns about a bill that cuts $28 billion from food stamps, which provide the most basic necessities. In addition, I am very concerned that this bill will drop or deny SSI benefits to over 300,000 children during the next 6 years. This was also a concern I had with the work first bill I supported earlier. While I admit that there are some problems in the SSI Program, we can certainly address the problems through more targeted reforms and regulatory changes. I have voted for workfare. Indeed, I voted for an amendment to strengthen the work requirements in this bill by requiring able-bodies welfare recipients to participate in community service jobs within 2 months of receiving aid. I support moving families from welfare to work. I believe we can accomplish that in a just and humane way. I do not believe, however, that the bill we have before us today is just and humane, and I will not vote to punish innocent children.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Laureen Lazarovici, a fellow in my office, have the privilege of the floor during consideration of this vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a 10-second unanimous-consent request?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 5 seconds? Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to make a plea to my colleagues. Please err on the side of caution when we are dealing with the lives of poor children in America. This amendment says that Health and Human Services studies this legislation and if, God forbid, there are provisions in this legislation that create more impoverished children, their report comes back to us at the end of 2 years and we take action--quick action--to modify these provisions so that we can correct the problem. Democrats and Republicans: This is the right thing to do. We ought to evaluate the action that we are taking in this legislation. And God knows we ought to take the corrective action, if that is necessary, to make sure that we are not creating more poverty among children. This is the right thing to do. It is a fail-safe mechanism. It is a safety net built into the legislation. I hope--I hope--every Democrat and Republican will support this. We must do this if we are to understand what this legislation means and be able to take corrective action, if necessary, to help poor children in America. Please support this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I am going to wait until we have order.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to speak until I have order in the Chamber. I would like for my colleagues to please listen.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask for order in the Chamber.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. This amendment speaks to an issue that we, as the Senate, have really, I think, taken some important steps and major strides forward in addressing, and that is domestic violence in our country, violence within families that effect women, children, and sometimes men--usually women and children. Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that States that receive the block grant under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act establish standards and procedures regarding individuals receiving assistance who have a history of domestic abuse, who have been victimized by domestic abuse and have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty. There was a study done by the Taylor Institute in Chicago that documented that between 50 to 80 percent of women receiving AFDC are current or past victims of domestic abuse. In other words, for all too many of these women and children welfare, imperfections and all, is the only alternative to a very dangerous home. So what this amendment would say is that States would be required to screen and identify individuals receiving assistance with a history of domestic violence, refer such individuals to counseling and supportive services, and waive for good cause other program requirements for so long as necessary. This is what the States would essentially end up doing. It would all be done at the State level. Mr. President, we cannot have ``one size fit all,'' as I have heard many of my colleagues so say. It took Monica Seles 2 years to play tennis again. Can you imagine what it would be like as a result of her stabbing--to be beaten up over and over and over again; can you imagine what it would be like to be a small child and see that happen in your home over and over again? I want to make sure that these women and these children throughout our country, for whom the welfare system has been sometimes the only alternative to these very dangerous homes, receive the kind of special services and assistance that they need. In the absence of the passing of this amendment, all too many women and children could find themselves forced back into these very dangerous homes. So it is a reasonable amendment. It is one that speaks to the very real problem of violence within homes in our country. It would be an extremely important, I think, modification of this welfare bill that would provide assistance that is really needed by many women, many children, and many families in our country. I hope that this amendment would be agreed to and would receive strong support, bipartisan support.