Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I shall only speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday I came out on the floor to speak about the energy assistance program. I need not repeat most of what I said, yesterday. But I thought I would try to be brief and summarize. Mr. President, I am a Senator from a cold-weather State, Minnesota. By cold-degree days, we have the third coldest days in the country behind Alaska and North Dakota. Last year in my State about 330,000 people received some energy assistance so that they would not go cold. Many of them were elderly households, many of them were households with children, and many of them were households with minimum wage workers with an average rent of around $350. Let us think about this as a kind of cold weather lifeline program, almost more of a survival supplement than an income supplement, designed to ensure that people will not go cold. Mr. President, right now as I speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in my State of Minnesota, without exaggeration I can say that there are some people with no heat with the temperatures around zero. Last weekend when Sheila and I were home the temperature was about 50 below wind chill. There are people in the United States of America, in my State, and in other cold-weather States as well, I am sure, Mr. President, who are now living in one room. That is all they are able to heat--one room. There are some people with no oil or propane in their tank. Mr. President, there are some Minnesotans who are trying to heat their home by just turning on their oven. There are also people in my State--I am joined by my colleague from Iowa--who right now are not able to purchase the food they need or the prescription drugs they need because of the money they are now spending for energy maintenance to make sure they do not go cold, because they have such limited means. In the United States of America right now, in Minnesota, Iowa, and other cold-weather States, there are people who are cold, and I am positive, I am positive as I speak here today, that somebody will freeze to death and then we will take action. It will be too late. Mr. President, this is the problem. Last year, by the end of December, about $1 billion had been allocated out to our States for assistance. This is not a 1-year program. It does not do any good to tell people they will be able to receive some assistance so they do not get cold in June or July. Time is not neutral. The total cost of the energy assistance program nationally was less than one B-2 bomber. It was $1.3 billion last year, $900 million right now. This is the problem. It was eliminated on the House side. But Senator Daschle--and, I might add, other Senators as well, Republicans included, Senator Specter being one really good example, and I know Senator Hatfield cares fiercely about this, and I could list others as well; Senator Smith from New Hampshire--many people, many from the cold-weather States. We know now what has happened. It has become a moral issue. Last year by the end of December, about $1 billion had gone out, and I think this year about $230 million has gone out nationwide. In my State of Minnesota, by this time last year, about $25 million--right now, $9 million. We have long waiting lists of people who have no assistance or people who have received only $100 when last year they received $350. What is going to happen to them next month or the month afterwards? So, Mr. President, I will yield in just a moment for a question from my colleague. I just want to make it clear where we are right now. It is extremely important that if there is a continuing resolution--and there should be because there should not be any Government shutdown--it is extremely important that we have the language to accelerate the allocation of this money. If you did just 75 percent of last year, I say to my colleague, that would be over $900 million. We must get this out to our States now so people do not freeze to death. There cannot be one Senator or Representative, regardless of party, that could really disagree with this proposition. If this does not happen, Mr. President, with the wording of the continuing resolution at the end of this week, it has to happen at the beginning of next week. And if there is no continuing resolution, I would say to the administration you have the authority because we already have the money. This is forward funded. We already have the money. You have the authority to release that money. However we get the job done, for God's sake, let us get the job done. That is really what I am saying. I feel very strongly about any issue, not because I believe this is the only issue that our country is confronted with, not because I do not fully appreciate the overall budget debate and the difficult choices that all of us have to make, not because I do not care fiercely about what will happen in Bosnia and for the safety of our soldiers and that they will be able to make a difference there. Sometimes, in all these statistics and all this alphabet soup, OMB, CBO, baseline budget--you are familiar with what I am talking about--it is just disconnected from the reality of people's lives. This is such a time. I am a Senator from a cold-weather State, Minnesota, and I will do whatever I need to do as a Senator to get the funding out to my State, and for that matter other cold-weather States, so that people, be they seniors, be they children, be they individuals with disabilities, or be they low-wage families, are able to get some assistance so they can heat their homes now. Right now, too many of our citizens are cold. Too many of our citizens are without heat. This is wrong. This is a moral issue. We must do something about this, and it is within our power to do something about this today. We have to take action. I know the Senator from Iowa had a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, Mr. President, that the other problem that my chief legislative analyst, Colin McGinnis, reminded me of is it takes about 10 days or so for OMB and HHS to run the computer formulas, cut the checks, and get the money out to the States. We have a long waiting list in Minnesota already who would be served by that funding. So we really are again--time is not neutral. For God's sake, I would say to every single one of my colleagues, Democrat, Republican, let us do this before Hanukkah. Hanukkah is Sunday night. I am Jewish. Hanukkah is Sunday night. Then we have Christmas. Let us do this before Hanukkah. Let us do this before Christmas. Let us please make a commitment as Senators to make sure that people at least do not go cold in America. This is wrong. We can do much better. There is no reason in the world for us not to be able to reach out. I mean, if you want to talk about family values, I think the most important family value there is is to reach out with a helping hand. I think everybody agrees with that. So we have to get this job done. I thank my colleague. I thank my colleague from Iowa. Mr. President, I am just going to finish up. This just is one example. I have many examples from Minnesota, but this is an example of what can happen when people are without heat, from right here in the District of Columbia. Three years ago around this time, a fire burned down a small apartment building in the Mount Pleasant region of the District of Columbia, burning to death two little girls, Amber and Asia Spencer, ages 6 and 5. The girls were killed by a fire when one of the candles that was used to heat the apartment fell over. The electricity had been turned off 2 months earlier when the girl's grandmother, their guardian, could not afford to pay the heating bill. It is my understanding that every winter, children across the country are killed or injured by fires caused by desperate attempts to keep warm--to keep warm. I have said to my leader, Senator Daschle, I have said to the Republicans--again, I know Senator Smith from New Hampshire, another cold weather State, said he really wants to be on the floor, wants to fight hard for this; Senator Abraham has been very committed to this; Senator Specter has been very committed to this; Senator Jeffords and any number of Republicans on the other side of the aisle. I do not view this as a partisan issue. I think it was a huge mistake for the House to eliminate this. I have been fighting for this for 6 months because I know it is so important to people. But I think right now the issue is not to have a fight. That is not the point. The point is to bring people together and to at least make the small change. We already have the money. It is already there. All we have to do is make sure that in a continuing resolution, if the Government is not shut down--and I hope it will not be shut down; I do not think it should be--to make sure in the continuing resolution that we are able to allocate the funds out to the States. If we just do it on the basis of 75 percent of last year, Mr. President, so that now as the winter weather is upon us in our States, then we could get adequate short-term funds out fast. It can be allocated out to the communities and we can protect people. We should do that. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague and good friend from Iowa, absolutely. Here is what we do not know. My hope is that since this continuing resolution would originate from the House, that on the House side they would have put into the resolution the language, the authority, for us to go forward with accelerated funding right now. There are many Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, who are very uncomfortable with where we are at in this Nation. Thank God they are. There are people who feel--they are saying, ``Look. We don't just want to be here while people go cold.'' All right. So my hope would be that you would have a resolution that would come over here with a formula that would allocate the funds that we need to get out to the States so people do not go cold. People are cold now. If that does not happen, then certainly we can amend that. That is one possibility, we can amend that, and we would insert wording that would make sure that we would get the allocation of funding out. We could do that. I say to my colleague that that is a possibility. Now, if it was for 2 days, over the weekend, then another possibility--though we have to see--would be, depending upon commitments that are made, that it would be done in the beginning of next week. But we have to get it done. Right now I feel very strongly we have to get it done today. We have to do everything we can to make sure that we get this funding out to families in our States so people do not go cold through a continuing resolution today or through a continuing resolution Monday or through the administration, if there is no continuing resolution, releasing the funds. It has to happen. It makes very little difference to the people out in our States who are cold, who are really frightened, many of whom are desperate, what way the funding gets to them and what way they get the energy assistance. We can do it a number of different ways. But I have gone on record all week saying--I believe we have some amendments that we drafted to this continuing resolution. I certainly know my colleague from Iowa will be with me. If that is what we need to do, that is what we will do. If we can do it another way, we will do it another way.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to make it clear, I mentioned the other day the work of the Senator from Vermont. He has spoken on this several times. I want to thank the Senator and Senator Jeffords as well. I believe that those of us from cold-weather States know what this means in human terms. We know from the phone calls and the people with whom we visit. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Right.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is absolutely correct. And we have urged the administration to do that, absolutely.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Midnight.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, I would say to my colleague that what has happened is by the terms of these continuing resolutions, the money cannot be appropriated right now by the administration. And that is what I was trying to explain earlier. Right now we have a couple of different scenarios that are possible. First, I want to say to my colleague--he may or may not realize this-- in the first draft of the continuing resolution from the House of Representatives, zero came out for LIHEAP for this year. There was actually language that said that no LIHEAP money could be spent, no energy assistance money could be spent, until the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill of this year was passed. This would have effectively guaranteed that there would be no money going out. We saw that and we said that if that came to the floor, we would amend it. And it was ultimately amended. With the support of the White House and others, that was dropped. But my understanding, I say to my colleague, is right now by the terms of the continuing resolution that we are under, that money cannot be spent. The only money that could be spent has been spent--about $230 million. One of two things has to happen. If we get a continuing resolution, we have to have language which essentially says that we have to accelerate the allocation of this money which exists. Even if it was 75 percent of last year's level, that would be over $900 million, which we need to get out. But if there is no continuing resolution, I say to my colleague, the administration then has the legal authority--and we were in touch with legal counsel at OMB to confirm this--they could release the money.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. It is.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague--and by the way, I would like to thank the Chair. Quite often we are speaking on the floor, and the Presiding Officer is writing letters and not paying attention. He comes from a more warm-weather State. I thank him for his courtesy. I would say to my colleague from Iowa, we are getting all of these calls from elderly people, and I will tell you exactly what they do, and then I would like to compare notes with the Senator and get his reaction. What will happen, under that definition, it will not happen that elderly person will not pay his or her bill, but they will not purchase the prescription drugs they will need that the doctor prescribed or they will simply have less money for food. It is that simple. And by the way, during the winter is not a time when you want to have less income to be able to have a decent diet. That is exactly what is going on, I say to my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to speak in opposition to the VA/HUD appropriations conference report. There are many reasons why I believe that the report we have before us represents unhealthy priorities for the American public, and I am pleased that the President has expressed his intention to veto this bill should it pass the Senate. First, this report provides $400 million less than the President's budget request for the VA medical care account. This will have a serious impact on veterans' access to quality health care. While there may be some doubt as to the validity of VA projections of the precise impact of such a cut on veterans health care, there is no question that it would result in some combination of substantial reductions in the number of veterans treated both as outpatients and inpatients as the number of VA health care personnel shrink. The impact, according to the VA, would be equivalent to closing three VA medical centers with an average of 300 beds each. When these cuts are coupled with slashes in Medicare and Medicaid, many veterans could be faced with a triple whammy--forced out of Medicare and Medicaid while VA is unable to handle a large influx of new patients as the VA health care budget shrinks in real dollars. This will particularly have an impact on the soaring population of veterans over age 65 and veterans unable to afford private health insurance. In the process of cutting funding for major medical construction projects, vital projects for renovating VA hospitals that do not meet community standards and are deteriorating are scrapped. How can we treat veterans who made sacrifices defending this country in facilities that do not meet fire and other safety standards? What a travesty this is. At a time when we are honoring the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II and the veterans who risked their lives defending our freedom, the least we can do is to ensure that they receive the health care they are entitled to in a safe and dignified setting. This report also eliminates funding for the Corporation for National Service [CNS], which was established by the bipartisan National Community Service and Trust Act of 1993. The Corporation for National Service administers such programs as AmeriCorps, the National Civilian Community Corps, and even former President Bush's Points of Light Foundation. President Clinton has requested $817,476 million for CNS for fiscal year 1996. However, the report we have before us gives the National Corporation $15 million for necessary expenses to terminate programs, activities, and initiatives under the National Community Service Act. In order to understand the severity of this action, I would like to use the AmeriCorps program as an example. AmeriCorps, which is funded and run by CNS, helps students pay for college in exchange for their service to American communities. AmeriCorps is a program which needs to be preserved. National Service addresses beliefs we all share: getting things done, strengthening communities, encouraging personal responsibility, and expanding opportunity. Despite the ideals realized by AmeriCorps, both the House and Senate individually denied funds to the program in their VA/HUD appropriations bills, and now the conference report kills the program outright. Fiscal year 1995 post/rescission funding was $219,000 million for AmeriCorps grants. The President requested $429,800 million for fiscal year 1996. AmeriCorps has been a huge success. Members of law enforcement from police chiefs Willie Williams of Los Angeles to Carol Mehrling of Montgomery County, MD, (and many departments in between, have been unwavering in their support for the AmeriCorps Program. And this is a program which Republicans and Democrats alike support. Members of Congress, Governors, mayors, and businesses such as IBM, General Electric and American Express know the value of AmeriCorps, and of the Corporation for National Service. AmeriCorps has exceeded expectations about its efficiency. One study, validated by the GAO, found AmeriCorps produced $1.60 to $2.60 in benefits for every invested Federal dollar. And the AmeriCorps is not solely dependent on Federal dollars. During AmeriCorps first year it was directed by Congress to raise $32 million. It actually raise three times that amount--$91 million, 41 million of which came from the private sector. We should not be misled by its success, however. AmeriCorps cannot raise private and foundation funds without Federal seed support. AmeriCorps provides a large bang for education dollars while simultaneously getting results for real needs, strengthening communities, and encouraging responsibility. Education. Public Safety. Human Needs. The Environment. AmeriCorps is a program designed to do what we in Congress talk about all the time: bringing people from all backgrounds together to solve problems at the local level. In Minnesota, AmeriCorps members are extremely valuable. AmeriCorps members serving within the Minneapolis Public School provide activities to support the education of special needs youth. Members tutor, provide after school education activities, and recruit volunteers for support programming. Members work to secure affordable housing for low-income families, assist domestic violence victims, and coordinate projects to prevent and lessen homeless. Minnesota has AmeriCorps members doing more different things than I have time to list here. Older Minnesotans work as foster grandparents, serving over 80,000 children statewide. Rural members teach pesticide safety. People work to restore our parks and trying to provide places for our children to play. Of course, Minnesota is not alone in its utilization of AmeriCorps volunteers. All of my colleagues come from States which benefit from them. All of us should continue to support their efforts, not tear them down. I am also opposed to this conference report because of the devastating blow it delivers to funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. This conference report cuts EPA by 14 percent overall from what we appropriated last year. The conference report continues to contain a number of riders that aid special interests at the expense of the health and safety of the American people. These riders include one which would halt EPA efforts to expand one of our country's most successful Right-to-Know programs, the Toxic Release Inventory. Already this fiscal year, temporary continuing resolutions have resulted in a drastic cut in EPA's funding. As a result, EPA has been forced to cancel a number of inspections involving all sorts of environmental hazards. As Carol Browner said today in the Washington Post, ``The environmental cop is not on the beat.'' The lack of inspections will only get worse under this conference report that cuts enforcement funding by 14.6 percent. These funding cuts will make it impossible for EPA to carry out work that helps protect the health and safety of every American. This bill will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for EPA to carry out its responsibilities under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. We cannot allow this to happen and I don't believe the American people want it to happen. At least, no Minnesotan has ever approached me to ask for dirtier air and water, and that is exactly what slashing EPA's budget this way will yield. There are other reasons to oppose this conference report. While I support the President's commitment to streamline HUD's programs and I understand the importance of cutting funding for wasteful programs, I believe that the housing cuts in the VA-HUD conference report have gone too far. Cuts to the section 8 program mean that homeless families or individuals will be without the assistance they need to move to either transitional or permanent housing. Cuts to public housing modernization will mean that fewer housing units will receive necessary repairs and maintenance. This maintenance is essential to ensure the quality of life of public housing residents and its neighbors. This bill also cuts funding for the Homeless Assistance Grant Program, Indian housing development, and the Housing Counseling Grant Program. All of these housing cuts will disproportionately harm low-income persons, the elderly, native Americans, and persons with AIDS. This funding is a safety net and cuts in housing programs will mean only one thing--more people will be living on the streets. I think we are making a mistake if we pass this package. Given all these reasons--the irresponsible cuts to veterans programs, the decimation of the Corporation for National Service, the damage done to environmental programs, and the attack on housing programs for the working poor, I will oppose the VA-HUD Conference Report, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. community development financial institutions fund

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, thank the managers of the bill for their help in providing the Twin Cities Research Center [TCRC] a smooth transition from Bureau of Mines facility to non-Federal entity. The Minnesota congressional delegation and the TCRC have been working to facilitate this transition, and would like to ask the chairman about the following scenario. The TCRC would be able to continue operations within the Department of the Interior until June 30, 1996 or until such time as a transfer of the facility to a university or government entity is completed, whichever is sooner. The responsibility for identifying funds to maintain such operations would lie with the TCRC and/or the partners interested in seeing this facility remain open. To the extent authorities exist for the Department of the Interior to accept donations or contributions that might be offered to keep the facility open, they may be used. If the Department were to identify other funds that might be available to assist in this, or similar efforts, they would be subject to the normal reprogramming guidelines. I would ask the chairman--if the authorities exist that would allow funds to be made available for the purposes described, would the interested parties be able to consider such a scenario?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have spoken time and time again about the cuts in this Republican budget to low-income heating, energy, and weatherization assistance programs that help the most needy in our country. Throughout this year we have seen horrible heat waves and horrible cold snaps. Many citizens of our Nation have become ill and some have even died from the heat and the cold. Yet, still we cut those programs. In the Interior Appropriations bill, energy conservation programs are funded at a level that is only 60 percent the President's request and only 73 percent of last year's funding level. That is just plain foolish. Mr. President, I have also spoken time and time again about how this Republican budget gives away our natural resources without measuring long-term budget consideration and without designing a long-term energy policy. Still, despite new information, numbers that just don't add up and many unexplored environmental concerns, the Republican budget still contains provisions to open up the Arctic Refuge to drilling, to give oil companies royalty relief for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and pages and pages of other provisions that just don't make sense. This is not energy policy, this is not environmental policy. This is short-term gain without consideration of long-term loss and a jumbled- up mass of contradictions. It just don't make any sense. Mr. President, why say that our country needs more oil and needs to rely less on foreign supply and then turn around and allow Alaska North Slope oil to be sold to foreign countries. Does that make sense? We need more oil, but we can sell some anyway? Mr. President, why say that our country needs more oil and needs to rely less on foreign supply and then turn around and slash funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program and other conservation programs. We need more oil, but we can afford to waste some? Why say that our country needs more oil but not consider ways that we could save oil, by beginning discussions on a long-term energy policy that will benefit every citizen of this nation, not just the oil companies. We need more oil, but lets not worry about how we use it? Mr. President, this is all just smoke and mirrors. This country needs a long-term energy policy and this country needs to have policies and budgets that are not a mass of contradictions. Our natural resources are the last thing we should play with. I will be voting against this bill. externally fired combined cycle funding

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object to further consideration of this matter at this time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand there is a bill on the calendar due for a second reading.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin. Again, really, I think this is the beginning of the discussion today. There will be time--and I believe a number of us will be back on the floor throughout the day. We are going to keep pushing on this. Senator Kohl mentioned this letter, dated December 8 and signed by 54 Senators, to Chairman Hatfield, who I really want to say right now has been very committed to trying to do something about this. He has been great in the U.S. Senate, and we are going to dearly miss him. I know he feels as if his hands are tied at the moment. He is very committed to do something about the acceleration of getting the funding out to communities. But 54 Senators have signed this letter, simply saying, look, we have to get the funds out. Temperatures have dropped below freezing, there is snow on the ground, and we simply are not able to get the money out. There is a real sense of urgency here. So there is a tremendous amount of support for this on the Senate side. I have been in contact with many offices. I know Senator Leahy, Senator Kerry and others are very, very committed to this and are very anxious for us to get this resolved. Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, as well. I mean, Democrats and Republicans alike want to get this done. This has become a moral issue. I do not believe that is an exaggeration. Are we going to dilly-dally around here and play games and talk about all these statistics, and yet not come together to make some change in a formula to make sure that we get some urgently needed funds out into communities so people do not freeze to death in the United States? Mr. President, when we went through the rescissions package, I held that package up for a short period. Part of the reason I did that was, there was a deal late at night, and all of a sudden over $300 million, or thereabouts, was cut from the energy assistance program. I remember saying in the debate then that if this is a glimpse of what is to come, I do not want to have anything to do with it. This is too harsh, too extreme, it is too radical. This is beyond the goodness of people in America. And when we were faced with our first continuing resolution, at one point in time there was some suggested language that said that until the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill is passed, there can be no allocation of energy assistance money. What is going on here? What is going on? This is so harsh and so extreme. While we beat that effort back, the problem is even more urgent now. Mr. President, this article says, ``Buffalo Prays for a Warm Winter.'' We can do better than that, can we not? Are we not policymakers? Is that what people are supposed to be reduced to, praying for warm weather? Do we need to just pray for a warm winter? It is not a warm winter in Minnesota. We need to take action. Another article focusing on LIHEAP funding problems says, ``A Heap of Trouble in New York.'' A Lexington, KY, paper has a headline here that says ``Staying Warm.'' The list goes on. Beaver, PA, ``Bankruptcy, Heating Program for the Poor Hit.'' In the Maine Sentinel, ``Heating Program Cut; Out in the Cold.'' ``Timing Wrong for Eliminating Weather Aid,'' Albany. The list goes on and on, Mr. President. ``Cold Comfort,'' Boston Globe. Des Moines Register, ``A Shameful Place to Cut. A rich nation can help its poor stay warm in the winter.'' The Des Moines Register editorial says LIHEAP is a shameful place to cut. A rich nation can help its poor stay warm in the winter. Is that not true any longer? Mr. President, this is a shameful place to cut. Our Nation can do better, and, in my State of Minnesota, there are citizens who are going without heat, and one is one too many. There are people who are cold, and one family is one too many. There are families who depend on this energy assistance, so they do not get cold and so they will have enough resources to be able to purchase prescription drugs if that is what they need, or food. The total cost of this program was less than the cost of one B-2 bomber. The Des Moines Register is right, a rich nation can help its poor stay warm in the winter. Mr. President, in this situation, time rushes on; time is not neutral. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. I assume there is goodwill on the part of all of my colleagues, and I assume I will receive a tremendous amount of support. Fifty-four Senators already have gone on record as saying we have to act now. Mr. President, I believe that for the next 2 days this must be a priority for the U.S. Congress, and for the next week it must be a priority to make sure that people in the United States of America--men, women and children--do not go cold. We must make sure that we do not have people freezing to death in the United States of America. The issue could not be clearer. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rose last week to talk about an issue that is critical to people in my State, and across the Northeast and upper Midwest. There have been scores of editorials in major newspapers all across the country dealing with a fundamental moral issue that we, in this Nation, are confronted with this week in the Senate and House of Representatives. The title of this editorial is ``Pray for Warm Winter. GOP Plans Mean Pork and a Loss of Heating Aid.'' I am going to be joined by a number of colleagues throughout the day who want to speak on this issue. My colleague from Wisconsin is here, Senator Kohl. I wish to make sure that other colleagues know that only late last night did we realize we would have some time today. But there have been a number of Senators who have taken a lead on this issue-- Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Cohen, Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy, Senator Harkin, Senator Abraham, Senator Moynihan, and others--Democrats and Republicans alike. Mr. President, fuel assistance programs across the country have run out of money, and people are being forced out in the cold. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now, and time rushes on. Quite frankly, whether or not this continuing resolution is for 2 or 3 days, or whether there is another continuing resolution for 1 week or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with the essential fact that there are men, women, and children in the Northeast, Midwest, and cold weather States who are going cold right now. More short-term fixes won't cut it anymore. There are long waiting lists throughout the country, and when people in this program don't get served, they don't heat their homes. In the State of New York, for example, I have heard that people are being told to come back in March to apply for energy assistance. Come back in March, when it's freezing there now. In my State of Minnesota--and I am sure it is the case in my colleague's State of Wisconsin--this weekend temperatures are right around zero. We have to allocate this money now, and the problem is that for all of our States we are faced with the situation of needing the money desperately, right now. Let there be no mistake. This is not really a 1-year program, it is basically a 6-month heating program. We need to get funding to people for energy assistance now. By this time in Minnesota last year, as opposed to $9 million, we had about $25 million out in our State. Right now, Mr. President, there are 31,000 applications now pending; 16,000 cannot be served; close to 4,000 people in crisis, many in a no-heat situation. In Minnesota, many have been turned away. This is outrageous. It is unconscionable. So what we have to do is make sure that in this continuing resolution--Friday, Monday, starting with the one Friday by midnight--we have a formula that accelerates the delivery of funding to our States, to the cold weather States so people do not freeze to death. We cannot go forward on this ad hoc basis--a little bit here and a little bit there but not enough to serve long waiting lists of people. Our country can do better. In the State of Minnesota last year, 110,000 households, about 330,000 people, were served by this program. Grants were about $380 or thereabouts. The heating bills for people were far more than that during the winter but in many cases this at least enabled people to get by. Many of the people who benefit are elderly people who live on Social Security benefits. Many of them are families with children. Many of them are families struggling with disabilities. Many of them are minimum wage workers. It is unbelievable; in the House of Representatives this program was eliminated outright, cut by over $1.3 billion. The total cost of the energy assistance program for the whole country is less than one B-2 bomber. This reflects seriously distorted priorities. These are not the priorities of the vast majority of people in this country. There are editorials in newspapers all across the country which essentially are saying what the vast majority of people are saying. What we are doing right now in Washington, DC, is too harsh and it is too extreme; it is too punitive. It must not be allowed to continue. Let me give a couple of examples of folks in my state who have been affected by these immediate, huge cuts. Clara Mager is a 73-year-old resident of an Iron Range town. I mentioned her problem briefly the other day. She receives about $675 a month in Social Security. She lives alone, and she raised 6 children on her own. She just received a grant of approximately $220. She owed her fuel provider, Intercity Oil, $177, and on Monday she had only 60 gallons left in her fuel tank. She does not know how she is going to make it through the winter, and she does not know whether she can stay in her house. Nancy Watson is 55 years old, from Clear Lake, MN, and disabled. Her income on SSI and MSA is $529 a month. She received a grant of only about $80 this year, and she does not know what she is going to do. It is far less than in the past because we are not getting the allocations of funds out there in the communities. In Blue Earth County--we are getting calls from all over the State--a self-sufficient 90-year-old woman lives alone; her monthly income is $204. Right now she has closed off almost all of her home, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin; she is living in one room. She is heating one room. She has not been able to get the energy assistance she needs this year. She does not know where she is going to go, and she thinks she is going to basically have to leave her home and go into a nursing home. Mr. President, there are people in my State, and in Wisconsin, and in many other States across this land right now, who either have no heat-- can you imagine that in the United States of America? There are those who are living or heating one room, or who have turned the thermostat down to 50 degrees, or who are using their oven to try and heat their home, whose furnaces have not been repaired but should be, but there was no funding for that, who are running with dangerous, badly maintained kerosene stoves, running a fire hazard, with the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. This is the United States of America? And so, Mr. President, let me just be clear about this to my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike: The Low-Income Energy Assistance Program requires a minimum amount of resources, but it goes to the core of what we are about. This is a cold-weather lifeline program. This is not an income supplement. This is a survival supplement. Family values, Mr. President, are about extending a helping hand. Family values are about giving people hope. Family values are about compassion. Family values are about all of us here understanding the implications and consequences of what we do. My God, we have statistics and alphabet soup, OMB, CBO, baseline budgets and all the rest. Too often, it is a bloodless debate. I am talking about people who are desperate, right now, today, in the State of Minnesota, who are having to go without heat, or being forced to scrounge funds from friends, relatives, charities to buy fuel. What is it going to take--someone freezing to death?--for us to take action? Then it will be too late. Time rushes on. Time is not neutral. People are going cold in America. We can do better. And I say to the administration, if there is no agreement come midnight Friday, since this was last year's funding, they should put out this money now. The money is there, waiting to be released, but it's constrained by law until midnight tomorrow. After that, the administration should release the $1 billion--it is already there--and get the funding out to the States and out to the communities so people do not go cold and so people do not freeze to death. I did not come here to the U.S. Senate from the State of Minnesota to be silent, especially not in the face of this kind of cruelty and unthinking slashing of the budget. I believe there is goodness in people. I believe there is goodness in people and it extends way beyond party. And I believe this is a moral issue. I honest to God believe this is a moral issue. I think the problem is that we have gotten so caught up in the statistics that we just do not understand what the implications are, what this translates into in personal terms and human terms. Mr. President, let me just simply say that as I understand this chart, just looking at the LIHEAP allocation by December of 1994, at least $800 million had been allocated out to communities. By the end of the second quarter, that number had shot to well over a billion dollars. That is last year. It is now December 15, 1995, and $231 million all together been allocated under the continuing resolution. That says it all. Last year by this time about $800 million had gone out to our communities to make sure that men, women and children do not go cold in America, do not freeze to death in America. By the way, don't anybody believe that this is scare tactics. Talk to any of the people who are out there trying to serve--Salvation Army, churches, foundations--that are trying to serve people right now, and they will tell you the same thing. By December 15, 1995, only $231 million. That will make for a cold Hanukkah and a cold Christmas for many Americans who depend on LIHEAP funds. One would think we could do better in this next continuing resolution. We have to accelerate the funding right now, and if we do not do that in a continuing resolution and there is no agreement, the administration needs to release the money right now. I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. (Mr. INHOFE assumed the chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 4 years of mass executions, mass rape, mass murders, brutal ethnic cleansing, sieges against civilians, terror campaigns, atrocities, and genocide not seen in Europe since the end of World War II--\1/4\-million people dead, 3 million people in the region refugees, and if we were to think about this in terms of our population, that would be the equivalent of 170 million American refugees. The people of Bosnia deserve relief from years of armed conflict, relief from displacement, relief from malnutrition and hunger, relief from winters without heat or electricity, relief from war crimes and, yes, relief from the indifference of the rest of the world. I traveled to the former Yugoslavia by myself 2 years ago. I went with my legislative assistant, Colin McGinnis. I visited with people in the refugee camps, and I saw enough pain and enough misery to last me for a lifetime. The Dayton agreement is the best and perhaps it is the last chance for peace in the region. That is why I intend to support it. While I am speaking on the floor, I would like to express my thanks and my love to the family of three American diplomats killed in Bosnia while serving the cause of peace. Our proper constitutional role as Senators and Representatives is to not give broad grants of authority to any President. I have talked to experts outside the Congress, had many briefings from people in the administration, met with people in the former Yugoslavia, and I have tried to the best of my ability to make the best decision for my country and for the world that I live in. I believe it is our responsibility to make sure the objectives are limited. I believe it is our responsibility to insist on as much clarity as possible. There are several reserve units going from Minnesota, and, as a Senator, I owe those families. It is my responsibility to make sure that everything is done that can be done to preserve their safety and the safety of all of our soldiers who are there--not to go to war, as I listen to the Senator from Oklahoma, but are there to secure a peace. Do I have concerns? You bet I have concerns. I do not think the arms control provisions of this agreement are very strong. I worry about the international police provisions; I think they are weak. I believe that there should have been, in the Dayton agreement, really a clear understanding--we keep talking about this 1-year time agreement--that the Europeans are a part of the transition and that they assume the responsibility for peacekeeping so that when we leave after a year or thereabouts, in fact the presence of NATO is there. Because it is not clear to me that we will be able to accomplish our objectives in that period of time. Do I worry? You bet I worry. I have been up at night trying to decide what the right decision would be. I worry about the landmines. I have had briefings from our military, and there are reasons for all of us to worry. Our soldiers are trained, they have been doing the training in Germany, but I worry about that. I worry about depending on Milosevic. I think Milosevic is a war criminal. And when I hear Milosevic has made this commitment and that commitment, it makes me nervous. I wonder what the meaning is when General Mladic says he has not agreed to this agreement. Does he go to the hills with his soldiers? I worry about that as well. This has been a difficult decision for me, but in the end I really believe that we are doing the right thing as a nation. In the end, I think the alternative to no peacekeeping force there--and there will be no peacekeeping force and there will be no agreement if we are not a part of that force--will be a living hell. The alternative, I say to my colleagues, will be a living hell: More genocide, more rape, more murder, more mass executions in Bosnia. And it could be a war that spreads to Central Europe. We are there to do the right thing. I believe that. I believe that for our children. I believe that for my children. In the end, I stand on the side of hope, hope for an end to this conflict, hope for an end to its attendant horrors, hope for a better world that we live in, hope for the peoples of that region, hope for an end to the bitter ethnic divisions, hope for an end to the religious hatred. I believe that we, therefore, in casting this vote in supporting our soldiers and in supporting this peacekeeping mission--I believe we cast the right vote. That is why I will vote for the Dole-McCain resolution, and that is why I am in opposition to the Inhofe-Hutchison resolution. Mr. President, on the day before the formal signing of the Paris Peace Agreement on Bosnia, we are gathered here for a historic debate. I want to share with my colleagues my views on the deployment of United States peacekeepers to Bosnia to participate in the NATO peacekeeping mission there. Designed to help put an end to the violence that has cost so many lives and so much suffering over the last 4 years, it offers real hope for peace. After much thought, I have come to a simple conclusion. With U.S. participation in the NATO peace effort, there is a real chance for a durable peace that could break the brutal cycle of violence there. Without our participation, we face an almost certain resumption of the fighting, and possibly a wider Balkan war. This war has taken a horrible toll, not only on the people of the region, but also on the conscience of people everywhere who have watched it unfold in all its horror on their TV screens, and struggled to figure out a way to help end it. For 4 years the people of Bosnia have suffered some of the worst atrocities in Europe: mass executions, mass rapes, brutal ethnic cleansing, sieges against innocent civilian populations, and terror campaigns. Atrocities we have not seen since the end of WW II. So far, the war there has left a quarter of a million dead, and nearly 3 million people from the region refugees, expelled from their homes and villages in brutal campaigns of ethnic cleansing. Three million refugees. Think of that. If such a war were fought here in the United States, by population share that would be equal to about 170 million American refugees. The people of Bosnia deserve immediate relief from the years of armed conflict, displacement, malnutrition and hunger, winters without heat or electricity, war crimes, and at times indifference by the rest of the world. The Dayton agreement offers a promise of such relief. I visited the Balkans 2 years ago. I met many people there, including many refugees who had been expelled from their homes, and who had lost loved ones and friends. I know the trials and horror they have experienced. Even in the face of these horrors, the President's decision to send United States troops to Bosnia is one of the most difficult foreign policy choices our country has confronted since the end of the cold war. The risks of the deployment, though I think they have been greatly reduced by the administration's careful planning, are real. From the millions of landmines left over from the war, to irregular forces, to weather, to other hazards, this mission is not without its dangers. But while many of us have had differing views about the proper United States role in Bosnia over the past 4 years, and some of us had pressed for tougher action against the Serbs for many months, there is one thing that is becoming more and more clear. The Dayton agreement is the best, and perhaps the last, chance for peace in the region. That's why I intend to support it. Full and effective implementation of this agreement offers the best hope to stop this brutal war, and to give the parties a chance to recover, and to rebuild their cities, to rebuild their nations. After months of fruitful negotiations led by the United States, and with the Europeans providing the bulk of peacekeeping forces to help monitor the agreement, I believe it would be a mistake for the U.S. Congress to sound an uncertain, quavering trumpet now regarding our commitment to peace in the region. Through tough-minded, tenacious diplomacy, President Clinton's envoy Richard Holbrooke worked for many months to help the warring parties craft an agreement that could bring an end to the bloodshed. He deserves our praise, and our thanks--as do those three American diplomats killed in Bosnia while serving the cause of peace. President Clinton observed in his recent speech that the United States can't be the world's policeman, but we can become involved in circumstances such as this, where we have a compelling national interest in maintaining the peace, where we have a chance to be effective, and where we have a clear duty to help. Over the course of the last few weeks, I have talked with the President and with his chief foreign policy advisors, including Secretary of State Christopher and Secretary of Defense Perry, and pressed them to ensure our mission was clear, limited, and governed by strict rule of engagement that would allow our troops to protect themselves in any circumstances. The Dayton Agreement provides for sweeping NATO rules of engagement that will allow U.S. forces to use all appropriate force to protect themselves. In the last 2 weeks, I have been urging administration officials to clarify the limited, narrow goals of the mission; how they intend to measure progress toward those goals, and the limits they will impose on U.S. troop activity in the region. I believe they have made real progress in clarifying each of these areas. This is our proper role in Congress: to press administration officials to clarify key points of their plan, ensure that objectives are limited and attainable, that an exit strategy is clearly laid out, and that planning for a post-U.S. presence upon withdrawal, composed presumably of Europeans, is moving forward. I believe that we have done that, pressing those responsible in the administration to close some gaps in their thinking that will serve our troops well in the long run. I have thought long and hard about this deployment and, in addition to my discussions with the President and his senior advisors, have consulted extensively with those whom I represent in Minnesota, administration officials at the working level in the Pentagon, the State Department, and elsewhere. I have talked with outside regional experts, and others. I've talked with Minnesota military personnel who are being deployed to Europe. There are several reserve units from Minnesota whose members are being deployed to Europe, and I am aware of my direct and profound responsibilities to them and to their families-- and to the families of all our troops--to ensure that everything possible is done to preserve their safety. The Dayton Agreement, especially its key military annexes, were clearly designed with these concerns in mind. And it has garnered broad support. It has the support of the Russians, of the U.N. Security Council, NATO, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, each of whom will play a key role in its implementation. It is truly a multilateral effort, of which the administration should be proud. But even though we played a key role in the development of this agreement among the parties, 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 United States, to help secure the future of that agreement. And they have assured us, NATO, and the U.N. Security Council that they will respect its terms, and take steps to protect our peacekeeping forces. Over 25 nations have responded to the call to help secure this peace. As the last remaining superpower, we have an obligation to join them. If the current ceasefire holds, and the peace agreement is signed tomorrow in Paris and begins to be implemented on schedule in the next few weeks, we have a duty, I believe, to help. I think it would be irresponsible to sit aside and allow the horrors that have taken place in Bosnia to continue. Our great hope is that this peace agreement might finally secure a lasting peace; we must not abandon that hope now by cutting off funds for our troops, or by refusing to grant at least conditional support for the mission. I have decided to support this peacekeeping deployment, even though I am fully aware of the potential risks and problems with it. For example, I believe the arms control and international police provisions of the Dayton Agreement are weak, and must be strengthened. And they are being strengthened and fleshed out, by NATO planners and through proposals offered last weekend at the London Implementing Conference. In the end, how they are implemented will make the big difference, and we in Congress must monitor this carefully. The reporting requirements of the Dole-McCain resolution will help ensure that Congress is kept informed on a formal, timely basis of developments in key areas of the accord's implementation, in both its military and civilian aspects. Likewise, I remain somewhat concerned that the very broad NATO rules of engagement leave considerable room for interpretation on the part of NATO field commanders there about how to react when faced with violent civil disturbances, hostage situations, harassment by irregular forces, or other similar situations. I know they do so to provide flexibility to our commanders in the field, but this is another area which must be monitored carefully. Supervising the separation of forces, maintained by the parties, is one thing. But serving as local police forces is quite another. While I know the Dayton Agreement prohibits the latter, we must be careful to ensure that the potential for any mission creep is strictly limited. We have heard a lot of heartfelt debate today, and expressions of concern about the potential for an extended, open-ended deployment. To those who are worried that Bosnia could turn out to be a quagmire, I can only say I have consulted as broadly as I could, weighted the risks as responsibly as I could, and I do not believe that is going to happen. I believe the administration has built into its implementation plans sufficient safeguards to avoid this problem, including strict limits on the areas where our troops will be, and on their mission. If I did believe this was a real risk, I would fiercely oppose this deployment. Let there be no mistake. This will be a NATO operation, with clear lines of command and rules of engagement, run by an American general. The mission is not open-ended. Our troops will be heavily armed, with the power and authority to respond to any potential threats as forcefully as necessary. Of course, there are some concerns that can never be fully met. For example, I have doubts about the sincerity of Serb President Milosevic, and about his ability to deliver on his promises. I have even less confidence in the Bosnian Serbs. I am frankly alarmed that General Mladic has not been willing to support the agreement, that Serb civilians in the Sarajevo suburbs have been so vocal in opposing it, and that the Bosnians have resisted cutting their ties with radical states like Iran. But those doubts should not deter us from at least supporting this attempt at peace; they simply offer reasons for caution. I have raised some of these concerns explicitly with the President and his advisors. I have asked tough questions of administration officials about how they intend to make good on United States commitments to lead an effort to provide arms and training to the Bosnian Government while serving as neutral peacekeepers. While I have in the past supported lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnians, I believe that with this agreement there is a real chance to stablize the situation through arms control, rather than primarily through building up the opposing armies. That's where our emphasis should be now. Demilitarization on all sides, not remilitarization, is the appropriate course to follow to estalish a military balance between the Serbs and the Moslem-Croat Federation. Once a full NATO balance-of-forces assessment is complete, the report required by the Dole resolution is submitted to Congress, and the arms build-down begins in earnest, I am hopeful that full compliance with the arms control provisions of the peace agreement will go a long way toward equalizing the forces. And if it does not complete the task, there will be plenty of moderate Moslem nations willing to help arm, equip, and train the Bosnians to better defend themselves, as necessary. I have also raised questions about the criteria that will be applied by NATO to measure progress toward its goals, and about the timetable for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces. Administration officials have provided me with all the information they could on these questions. While many of us would like to know that our troops will come home by next Christmas, I do not think the administration can realistically provide firm assurances that that will happen, and I think that it would be foolish to demand them as a condition for our support, since it could place our troops in great jeopardy if they are pulled our prematurely. I do know the President intends to have us get in, complete our mission, and get out, as swiftly as possible, and that General Shalikashvili has indicated that 1 year is more than sufficient time to accomplish the limited military goals of the mission. Completing our mission should be our primary goal, not meeting some arbitrary timetable that may by driven more by domestic politics than by the situation on the ground in Bosnia. Whether 1 year is also sufficient time to secure other, broader goals, including return of refugees, free and fair elections, and rebuilding of war-torn Bosnia, is unlikely. I know of almost no one who believes it is possible in that timeframe. But at least this year-long respite can end the violence, and start them on the road toward peace. I hope that we will be able to work out an agreement with out allies that will provide for a much smaller, residual force that could stay there longer, if needed, to monitor compliance with the accord. Composed largely of NATO troops from Europe, this force could begin to shoulder primary responsibility for the mission after 9 to 10 months. I have urged the administration to explore this more vigorously, because I think it is key to our exit strategy in the region. I would have preferred that it be built into this resolution. But I am satisfied that the administration has taken seriously this concern, and will take steps to explore it with our allies. On these and many other questions, administration officials have been very forthcoming. Where they were unable to provide clear answers, for example on the planned composition of a follow-on force if such a force were necessary after U.S. withdrawal, they outlined for me the state of their current thinking. Frankly, there is still much work to be done by NATO, the U.N. Security Council, and others over the course of the next few weeks and months to nail down answers to some of these key questions. But overall, I am satisfied that this deployment has been carefully planned and will be executed ably by our military forces. It is the responsible thing to do, the right thing to do. And that's why I intend to support it. Many Americans remain skeptical of U.S. participation in this peacekeeping effort. I continue to believe it is critical that the President have the support of the American people and their representatives in Congress before moving forward. And I think that as this process has moved forward, and the President and his advisors have made clear the limited, narrow nature of the NATO mission, more Americans are being persuaded that this peacekeeping effort is the right thing to do. Whatever we decide today, the President has already started sending U.S. troops to serve as advance support for the U.S. mission there. We must support the troops, and their families here in the United States, in every way we can. This resolution expresses clearly our support for their efforts. Mr. President, this has been a difficult decision for me. But in the end I stand on the side of hope--hope for an end to the conflict and its attendant horrors, hope for a better future for the peoples of that region, hope for an end to the bitter ethnic and religious hatreds that have engulfed the region. It is a hope tempered by realism, though, about the road that lies ahead, and the potential pitfalls of this agreement. Finally, let me say this. Over the last few weeks, some have asked me why I would be willing to consider supporting this peacekeeping deployment, when I opposed our going to war in the Persian Gulf. There a host of major differences between the two situations, not least of which is that our troops were being sent to the Persian Gulf to go to war; in Bosnia, they are going to secure a peace. The have been invited by the parties in Bosnia to secure a peace agreement, under firm security assurances provided by the parties. I opposed the war in the gulf, among other reasons, because--like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell--I believed the tough U.N.-imposed sanctions ought to have been given more time to bite. In Bosnia, I do not believe that are realistic alternatives to this peacekeeping deployment that have gone untried. This may be the opportunity that is needed, Mr. President, to break the cycle of violence in the lands of the former Yugoslavia by helping to keep the sides apart for a year in order to give them some time to begin putting their lives back together. Hopefully a year of peace will bring about something more lasting. It is my hope for the future of the peoples of that region that has led to me to conclude that we should support the President's action. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution. I yield the floor.