Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the Senate today is faced with an important decision about whether to ship extremely hazardous, high- level nuclear waste to a permanent repository in Yucca Mountain. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind, I would like to see this nuclear waste shipped safely out of Minnesota. I wish I could responsibly vote to support this resolution. I regret that I cannot today vote in favor. I have consistently said that before the Department of Energy and the Congress make a final judgment that we are ready to begin shipping high-level nuclear waste to a repository, there should be a carefully thought out, detailed plan in place, approved by the NRC and the DOE, to transport this radioactive waste and to manage all of the risks associated with that transportation. Although it has had over 30 years to do so, the Department of Energy has failed to develop such a safe--I emphasize ``safe''--waste transportation plan. While I want this high-level nuclear waste out of our State and think Yucca Mountain may very well be the most sensible location, I don't think we should move forward and commit ourselves irrevocably until we have all of the transportation and security issues addressed. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion, through a careful examination of congressional testimony, meetings with DOE officials, including the Secretary of Energy, State energy officials and local leaders, that there are too many uncertainties, too many unresolved issues, and the risks are simply too high for the citizens of Minnesota. I cannot now support this resolution. We urgently need to develop a comprehensive waste transportation plan and policy that protects the health and safety of local communities and all Americans. We should have such a plan in place before moving forward on a permanent repository plan. It is unacceptable to me as a Senator that the Department of Energy has ignored the very real and daunting task of developing a secure, comprehensive transportation plan before seeking to authorize the Yucca Mountain site. The simple fact is, the Congress should not be considering nor should the DOE have recommended authorization of the Yucca Mountain site before State and local officials were consulted and a comprehensive transportation plan has been finalized which takes into account their concerns and the people they represent. Madam President, even though the Department of Energy has had years to develop such a plan, they don't have one. By the way, I thank Secretary Abraham. I have talked with him over the phone. He has been very gracious, and I appreciate that. But when he testified May 16, 2002, that the ``Department is just beginning to formulate its preliminary thoughts about a transportation plan,'' to me, that is not enough for my State or the country. The Department spent $7 billion looking into Yucca Mountain geology but less than $2 million on the transportation of the nuclear waste. That works out at less than $10 million a year for the last 20 years. This is a fundamental flaw in the Department's approach. So, to me, failing to plan for the safe and secure transport of nuclear waste before approving the repository site would be irresponsible. I recognize the industry has had a generally safe record of transporting small amounts of nuclear waste over the last 35 years. But shipments to Yucca Mountain would be at an unprecedented level. The Department of Energy estimates that transportation to a central repository could involve the shipment of more than 46,000 tons of high- level radioactive nuclear waste across 40 States in 53,000 trucks or 20,000 railcars. It is worth noting that even if the shipments were to begin today, there are more than 200 million Americans living in the 700-plus counties that are traversed by DOE's potential roads and rail lines. The population is only going to grow, and grow more quickly, during the time DOE needs to move nuclear waste across the country. Beginning in 2010, the DOE estimates that over 1,000 truck and rail shipments of nuclear waste could well travel through Minnesota, through our most populated cities and towns such as Minneapolis-St. Paul, Mankato, Rochester, and the Twin City suburbs. So 683,000--looking at the proposed route--Minnesotans would live within 1 mile; 2,213,612 Minnesotans would live within 5 miles; 3,121,718 Minnesotans would live within 20 miles. That is about half of the State's population. This raises a very important and yet unanswered set of questions about the risks of possible accidents or terrorist attacks, and how local communities through which the waste would travel would manage the risk. That is why the Conference of Mayors passed a resolution just this past June expressing serious concerns about the issue and urging the Congress to prohibit the transport of waste until all cities--I include Minnesota cities and towns--along the proposed transportation route have been consulted and have received adequate training and equipment to protect the public health and safety of the citizens in the event of an accident. Again, I thank the Department of Energy and I thank the Secretary for his graciousness. Unfortunately, DOE has yet to hold any public meetings in recent years in Minnesota on the topic of, again, where is this going to go, what kind of training is there going to be, and how are we going to prevent an accident? To me, this is a key issue. Example: The DOE environmental impact statement maintains that shipping high-level spent fuel casks on mixed general freight trains is acceptable. This would permit casks of high-level nuclear waste to be mixed among cars of corn, soybeans, autoparts, and other goods. I am concerned that the DOE's regulations appear to be market driven; mixed freight trains are cheaper than dedicated trains. As the American Association of Railroads testified, DOE's position is ``driven, no doubt, by economic consideration.'' But the safe transportation of these highly toxic materials must take precedence over any cost considerations. I agree with the American Association of Railroads that dedicated trains would be a safer and more prudent alternative. I would like to have that laid out for me before we have a final vote on the repository. Madam President, I believe a transportation plan for nuclear waste shipments should have a ``zero accident'' goal, but as yet the DOE doesn't even have a plan. A zero accident goal would reflect a culture in which safety is paramount and drives all aspects of the transportation system. That goal encourages a culture of safety. I know there are safety concerns about these materials being stored where they are. The Department of Energy has argued that we need to consolidate this waste in one location. But that argument overlooks the fact that authorization of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository doesn't solve these concerns. The only reactors that will get rid of their waste completely, according to the DOE, are those that are closed today--and those are not in Minnesota. According to the draft environmental impact statement prepared by DOE, the Monticello and Prairie Island reactors will still have 111 and 344 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste, respectively, onsite when Yucca Mountain is full. Despite what the proponents would have us believe, the DOE's proposal fails to eliminate Minnesota's nuclear waste. Nationwide, when the Yucca Mountain project is completed, there will roughly be the same amount of high-level nuclear waste at powerplants across the country as there is today. We simply cannot afford to overlook the real and pressing security concerns inherent with the transportation of this fuel, nor can we ignore the fact that the next generation will still be left with similar problems of what to do with the waste. I will conclude this way. We urgently need to achieve a real solution to our storage problem with high-level nuclear waste, as opposed to forcing authorization of Yucca Mountain before there is a comprehensive plan for transporting the waste safely and securely before it is in place. I believe the Department of Energy needs to immediately begin a true collaborative process, seeking broad-based stakeholder input on the real challenges of transportation safety and emergency preparedness. While the Department of Energy has elected to proceed with significant questions remaining unresolved, a comprehensive transportation plan developed through a consultative process would give DOE's proposal for Yucca Mountain the credibility it now lacks. The DOE should immediately organize a stakeholder task force to develop transportation recommendations that include the experts on the ground, such as Governors and their safety agencies, local elected officials of the large and small towns where the waste will travel, emergency preparedness experts, and public health and safety officials, and develop a responsible plan that would transport this waste safely before a final decision is made. I believe there are a whole host of issues surrounding the transportation of nuclear waste material that must be addressed before final decisions are made on Yucca Mountain. We can make the decision next year or the year after. That would be fine with me--if these concerns can be met first. Unfortunately, the administration has elected to force the issue before all these concerns can be sufficiently addressed. I want to be able to support this resolution. I would like to be able to vote to move the high-level nuclear waste out of Minnesota. But I cannot, in good conscience, do this before there is a comprehensive plan in place to protect Minnesotans as this radioactive waste is moved through our State to Yucca Mountain, and from our State to Yucca Mountain. I think forcing the issue before such a comprehensive plan is in place would be a serious mistake, and that is why I intend to vote no on this resolution.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Senator from Nevada, 1 minute.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Alaska, I have over and over--my position is a somewhat different position than the Senator from Nevada--over and over I have said do not separate Yucca Mountain; you already put $7 billion into it. Why not lay out a comprehensive plan about how you are going to transport this safely to Yucca Mountain? That has been my issue over and over. I have asked the Department of Energy when will there be such a plan? Two years? Three years? Four years? I think we are now talking about several years in the future. I want to make it crystal clear to me that to vote for Yucca Mountain without those assurances, without the assurances about how it is going to be done safely, without the input of local communities, without the commitment that people will be trained, without any of those assurances whatsoever, it seems to me to be not responsible. That is my first point. My second point is to one more time say to my colleague and say to all colleagues, though there are those who would have us believe Yucca Mountain will eliminate Minnesota's nuclear waste, as a matter of fact, according to the draft environmental impact statement by the DOE, we still will have 111 and 344 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste in Minnesota onsite at Monticello and Prairie Island. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Texas, probably about 3 minutes. I want to talk about disaster assistance in Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as any number of my colleagues may have noted, if they have been watching CNN, northwest Minnesota in the last 3 weeks has been deluged by heavy rainfall causing disasters in 13 northwestern Minnesota counties. We have had massive flooding. Earlier this week, the President rightly declared these counties disaster areas, which will bring much needed FEMA assistance to individuals and businesses. More help is needed, and the Minnesota Farm Service Agency has estimated that we have 2 million acres in northwest Minnesota that are affected by the flooding, and the losses are expected to be about 70 percent. Most of the producers have carried crop insurance, but the crop insurance cannot come close to compensating for these losses. What I am worried about is FEMA can help us with public infrastructure and SBA can help some of our small businesses, but we need disaster relief for our farmers. Without disaster relief, there is no future for them at all. The President and the administration are saying that there will not be any more disaster relief money and that whatever assistance goes to these farmers has to come from the farm bill. In other words, money has to be taken from other farmers, taken from corn growers, wheat growers, soybean growers. The President and the administration are saying that our farmers cannot expect any relief until the year 2008, no matter what. That is not going to work for northwestern Minnesota. The farm bill which we passed is not a disaster assistance bill. It is a bill to stabilize farm income. It is a bill about the rural economies, but it is not about disaster relief. Disaster relief is all about ``there but the grace of God go I''--fire in Arizona, drought in South Dakota, flooding in northwest Minnesota. When the Congress decides to help areas affected by hurricanes and fires, we do not tell people to pull their emergency assistance out of somebody else's highway fund. Sometimes the Federal Government needs to be there for people, and this is one of those cases. I will be visiting northwest Minnesota again this week on Saturday afternoon. It is very important that the administration provide this much needed assistance. I do not think as a Senator, in the almost 12 years I have been in the Senate, I have ever voted against disaster relief for any part of the country, because, again, I think this goes to the essence of who we are as a community. Nobody asked for the flooding. Nobody asked for 2 million acres of farmland, 70 percent of it, to be destroyed. Nobody asks for hurricanes or tornados. Nobody asked for the drought. It is ``there but for the grace of God go I.'' We come together as a community and we provide the help for people. That is what disaster relief is about. I come to the floor to call on the administration to change their mind and to make a commitment to providing this assistance. We had it in the farm bill in the Senate. It was taken out in conference committee for 2001. Now we are talking about even more damage for 2002. There is no more important issue for the State of Minnesota than to get the help for these farmers. Otherwise, they will not be there. It will be all over. I appeal to the White House: Please change your mind on this matter. We need the help in Minnesota. There will be other States that will need the assistance, as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to not rush through this. We only have 10 minutes. I will use 5 minutes and then yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Florida, who has been such a leader on this issue, along with the Presiding Officer. Listen, I could go through this for hours. I don't know how to do this in 5 minutes, but let me try. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I think people get a whole lot more faith in politics and then people in politics when they not only campaign and say they are going to do something but, once in the Senate, they make this their passion and their goal. I say to the Senator from Michigan, you have done that. Every single day you have been focused on prescription drug coverage for people. I thank you for that. The House has a plan, and I simply have to point out to the Senate that I do not see it as a great step forward. I see it as a great leap sideways. I think people will come to see it the same way. People in Minnesota will. There are a number of problems. Part of it is ideological. When we passed Medicare in 1965, it was an enormous step forward. I will tell you, for my mom and dad, who are no longer alive, it made all the difference in the world. It meant there would be coverage for them. This was a Government program that, really, I put in the same category as Social Security. It was an enormous step forward, not just for senior citizens but made our country better. It made us a better country. What we want to do on the Senate side is extend prescription drugs as a part of Medicare. On the House side, basically what they are saying is, there is no guarantee of any benefit. But what they do say is, seniors will be entitled to some sort of coverage through drug-only insurance plans or through Medicare HMOs. By the way, a number of these private health insurance plans, I say to my colleagues from Ohio and Michigan, are telling me they are not going to provide the coverage for them because it will not work for them. The only people it will work for are people who will not need it, and they will not have a large enough pool, so it will not be profitable. But on the House side, apparently Republicans have said they do not want to extend this on to Medicare, in which case, really, they are interested in going down the road of privatizing Medicare. We are not. The second point is a real important one. If you are going to have prescription drug coverage that works for people, you have to keep the copays or deductibles sufficiently low and premiums sufficiently low so they can afford it. And it has to provide real catastrophic coverage. That is what people worry about the most. On the House side, you have this peculiar feature of between $2,000 and $3,700 there is no coverage. While people continue to pay premiums, they do not get any coverage. I think probably close to half of the senior citizens in this country actually are paying more than the $2,000 in expenses for prescription drugs; and they do not get any coverage whatsoever in the House plan. It does not make a whole lot of sense. This is truly one of those examples where the Devil is in the details. I guarantee you, when senior citizens--and it is not just about senior citizens; it is their children and their families; we are all in this together--see there isn't any coverage, people are going to say: What is this about? This does not meet our needs. The third issue which is important to me is that the House plan says we want to make sure that low-income seniors--the profile is not very high; it is not true the majority of senior citizens are ``greedy geezers'' playing all the swank golf courses around the country-- probably a full 75 percent have incomes below $30,000 or $35,000 a year. For low-income seniors, the House says, of course we would not have people paying, that it would be coverage they could afford, it would be free coverage, except then they have an assets test so that if you have a savings account of more than $2,000, or you have a car that is worth $4,500, or you have a burial plot worth more than $1,500, you would not necessarily be eligible for any help whatsoever. That strikes me as being stingy. To tell you the truth, it defies common sense. We ought not to be having this kind of stringent assets test when it comes to whether people can afford prescription drugs. My final point--and I could spend a lot of time on this--I am a cosponsor of the Senate bill. I think it is extremely important. I thank both my colleagues. I would love to see us have some cost containment. I think we should do it. I could talk about three options, but with only 30 seconds, I am only going to talk about one, because I have been working on it for several years. And so have Senator Stabenow, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Jeffords. I do believe at the very minimum we ought to allow our citizens to reimport these prescription drugs from Canada, according to all of the FDA safety guidelines. There is no reason in the world why our pharmacists, our wholesalers, and our families cannot reimport drugs, where they can get a 30-, 40-, or 50-percent discount. There is no reason whatsoever. I grant you, the pharmaceutical industry will not like this. But what we also have to do is make sure there is a way we can reduce the costs. I think that would be a helpful addition to what I think is a very important piece of legislation. I say to my colleagues, I think the House bill is a nonstarter. I think it is a great leap backwards. I think we have a much stronger bill. I look forward to the debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to address the subject of our Nation's security needs in the context of the Defense authorization bill presently before the Senate. I believe we must provide the best possible training, equipment, and preparation for our military forces, so they can effectively carry out whatever peacekeeping, humanitarian, war-fighting, or other missions they are given. They deserve the targeted pay raises of 4-6 percent, the incentive pay for difficult-to-fill assignments, and the upgrades to currently substandard housing contained in this bill. Under an amendment adopted by the Senate, the women who serve our country overseas in the Armed Forces will be able to obtain safe, privately funded abortions in overseas military hospitals. For many years running, those in our armed forces have been suffering from a declining quality of life, despite rising military Pentagon budgets. The pressing needs of our dedicated men and women in uniform, and those of their families, must be addressed as they continue to be mobilized in the war against terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11. This bill goes far in addressing those needs, and I will vote for it today. This bill also addresses a fundamental unfairness in the treatment of America's veterans by allowing concurrent receipt of military retiree benefits and VA disability benefits. Under current law, if you are career military and you earned a military pension, and you also have service-connected disability as a veteran, your military pension will be reduced by the amount you receive in VA disability payments. As a result, hundreds of thousands of American veterans, men and women who have served their country, are being cheated out of retirement benefits by this bizarre rule and it is time to make a change. Our disabled veterans have earned their retirement and deserve to receive fair treatment. Last year we passed this same legislation in the Senate, but it was gutted in the House. The Defense Department says it will recommend a veto of this bill if we restore these benefits. But I do not believe that the President will veto legislation to restore the benefits earned by disabled veterans, while career military men and women are overseas fighting for their country, at great risk to their lives. Instead of making threats, let's sit down and get this done for America's vets. I also believe the bill addresses some of the serious flaws in the process by which the Defense Department summarily terminated the Crusader Artillery system. I strongly believe in fair, transparent, and informed government-decision making processes, which did not occur in the case of the Crusader. Three Defense secretaries, three Army secretaries, and three Army chiefs of staff, as well as numerous administration officials, testified in support of the Crusader. Yet within a few weeks of this testimony, the Secretary of Defense abruptly terminated the Crusader. The decision was made without consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, without consultation with the Army, and without consultation with members of Congress. The Senate adopted an amendment which would require the Army Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense to conduct a serious study of the best way to provide for the Army's need for indirect fire support. At the same time, it provides the Secretary of Defense, following the study, a full range of options. These include termination to continued funding of Crusader, to funding alternative systems to meet battlefield requirements. Another issue I consider to be extremely important in relation to this bill has to do with our own military presence in the Republic of Colombia. As you know, under Plan Colombia, restrictions were placed on the number of U.S. troops and contract personnel in Colombia at any given time. Initially, a 500 troop, 300 contractor limitation was in place. Over time, however, the Senate has acted to address the needs of the Departments of Defense and State by shifting the ration of troop and contractors to 1:1. As a result of recent Foreign Operations Appropriations legislation, the troop cap dropped from 500 to 400, while the contractor cap was lifted from 300 to 400 personnel. Frankly, I am concerned that attempts may be made to raise the troop and contractor caps in Colombia. I have long argued that the United States should be careful and targeted in how it approaches the conflict in Colombia. I'm sure that most Senators would agree that it is important to retain the present limitations on U.S. troops and contractors in Colombia at 800 thru 400 troops, 400 contractors. Moreover, it is my understanding that the Department of Defense has not asked for the troop cap to be raised in Colombia, nor has the administration sought to have the troop cap waived. For this reason, I would like to be on record in support of present troop and contractor limitations in Colombia. Although I expect future debate on the contentious issues surrounding U.S. policy in the Andes, I think it is important for the Senate to be clear on this component of our aid to Colombia. I am concerned that we are getting deeper and deeper into a devastating civil conflict with myriad violent actors of ill repute. That said, I continue to hold out hope that the Congress can work with the administration to craft a policy for Colombia that reflects the best of American values, and acknowledges the economic and social needs of Colombia's beleaguered population. The administration should retain the troop and contractor caps in Colombia, and Congress should be adequately consulted should they decide to seek any such change. I also have concerns about the bill, especially about its missile defense provisions. The initial committee language would have cut total funding for missile defense from $7.6 billion to $6.8 billion. The Senate adopted an amendment to restore the entire $814.3 million that the Senate Armed Services Committee cut from missile defense, with the President being given the option of spending the funds on either missile defense programs or on combating terrorism. It was not my preference that the cut be restored, but I agree with the Senate's unanimous sentiment that these funds be used for the urgent priority of combating terrorism, and my strong hope is that the President will not disregard the will of the Senate and use these funds for missile defense instead. I have long been a critic of Ballistic Missile Defense, BMD, and I still have strong reservations about the feasibility, cost, and rationale for such a system. The last time I addressed missile defense on the Senate floor was on September 25, exactly two weeks after terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center. I argued then that pressing ahead on BMD would make the U.S. less rather than more secure. Instead, I suggested the Senate give homeland defense the high priority it deserves by transferring funds to it from missile defense programs. Given the justifiable concerns of Americans about possible terrorist attacks on U.S. nuclear facilities, it makes more sense to use the funds to protect our citizens against a priority threat rather than to counter a low priority threat with a very costly system that a number of informed scientists believe may never work. Under Chairman Levin's leadership, the committee eased the effects of the administration's April decision to provide emergency funding for only 7 percent of Energy Secretary Abraham's request for $398 million to improve security of nuclear weapons and waste. In a letter sent by Secretary Abraham to OMB Director Mitchell Daniels obtained by the New York Times, the Secretary stressed that the $398 million he was requesting was ``a critical down payment to the safety and security of our nation and its people.'' I couldn't agree more. But the administration obviously didn't agree and approved only $26 million. The April 23rd New York Times article on the matter made clear that the programs covered by the DOE request are vital to the protection of the United States from terrorist attack. Unbelievably, funding was turned down for several programs designed to safeguard nuclear weapons and weapons material in storage, including: $41 million to reduce the number of places where weapons-grade plutonium and uranium were stored; $12 million to detect explosives in packages and vehicles at DOE sites; $13 million to improve perimeter barriers and fences; $30 million to improve DOE computers, including the ability to communicate critical cyber-threat and incident information; and $34 million for increasing security at DOE laboratories. Who can argue that BMD funding for programs that can't be justified by DOD or are duplicative should take priority over programs designed to deter terrorist actions against U.S. nuclear weapons, weapons materials, and weapons laboratories? Just a few days ago, reports of possible terrorist use of a dirty bomb against the United States caused widespread public alarm. I am sure the American people would be even more alarmed by a threatened terrorist attack against DOE nuclear facilities. An attack by ballistic missiles is one of the least likely threats we face. Much more probable threats which a missile defense won't address are nuclear, biological or chemical attacks using planes, boats, trucks or suitcases. And as we are all aware even an impenetrable missile defense would have been useless against the assault on the World Trade Center. In short, I remain convinced that a national missile defense would be ineffective in preventing attacks by rogue states or terrorists. While the intelligence community continues to devote considerable resources to estimating both the threat of an ICBM and unconventional attack on the United States, it still finds that unconventional attacks are the more likely of the two. For example, recent testimony by the National Intelligence Officer, NIO, for Strategic and Nuclear Programs, before a subcommittee of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee repeated previous intelligence community judgments that U.S. territory is more likely to be struck by non-missile means of delivering weapons of mass destruction, WMD, than by ICBM's. His remarks were based on an unclassified version of a National Intelligence Estimate, NIE, that was released in January entitled: ``Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015.'' NIE's represent the collective judgment of the U.S. intelligence community. In testifying on why using non-missile means of delivering WMD's are the more likely option, the NIO adduced reasons similar to those cited before by other intelligence sources. Compared to ICBM'S, he said, non- missile means are ``less costly, easier to acquire, and more reliable and adequate . . . and also can be used with attribution.'' The NIO meant by this that non-missile means have the advantage of being used without imperiling those responsible, while ICBM's have ``signatures'' enabling the U.S. to quickly identify the attackers. Consequently, countries like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq which he said could be capable of launching missiles at the U.S. by 2015, would be risking a devastating counterattack by the United States. The key question of why these countries would risk destruction by firing an ICBM at us, when non-missiles can be used without a return address has yet to be revealed by intelligence or defense sources. North Korean, Iraqi, and Iranian leaders are evil, but they aren't suicidal. The NIO noted some states armed with missiles have shown ``a willingness to use chemical weapons with other delivery means,'' adding that U.S. territory is more likely to be attacked with non-missile WMD by terrorists. He concluded the intelligence community believes that the U.S. will face a growing missile threat because missiles have become important regional weapons for numerous countries and provide a level of prestige, coercive diplomacy and deterrence unmatched by non- missile means. But this thesis has been ably refuted by Joseph Cirincione, head of the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Proliferation Program. In a February speech before the American Association for the Advancement of Science he argued that the U.S. is facing a declining ballistic missile threat rather than the increasing threat the intelligence community sees. Cirincione focuses on the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission study which assessed the ballistic missile threat to the United States and took a much more alarmist view than intelligence assessments that had examined the same issue. The Rumsfeld Commission found that North Korea and Iran were devoting ``extraordinary resources'' to developing ballistic missiles capabilities that pose ``a substantial and immediate danger to the U.S., its vital interests and its allies.'' The Rumsfeld Commission report was an outgrowth of harsh attacks by several leading members of Congress on 1993 and 1995 NIE's. The 1993 NIE concluded that only China and several states of the former Soviet Union had the capability to attack the continental U.S. with land-based ballistic missiles, adding that ``. . . the probability is low that any other country will acquire this capability during the next 15 years.'' In a similar vein, the 1995 NIE, said: ``The Intelligence Community judges that in the next 15 years no country other than the major declared nuclear powers [i.e. Russia and China] will develop a ballistic missile that could threaten the contiguous 48 states or Canada.'' In the aftermath of harsh congressional criticism of the estimates, a congressionally mandated panel in December 1996 led by former Bush Administration CIA Director Robert Gates reviewed the 1995 NIE. The panel concurred with the NIE, finding that it was unlikely the continental U.S. would face an ICBM threat from a third world country before 2010 ``even taking into account the acquisition of foreign hardware and technical assistance, and that case is even stronger than was presented in the estimate.'' Apparently displeased by the Gates panel report as much as they were by the 1995 NIE, Congress mandated the Rumsfeld Commission panel which finally provided a different answer. The 1998 Commission report concluded that a new nation could plausibly field an ICBM ``with little or no warning.'' In the aftermath, the intelligence community adopted the ``could standard'' which became apparent in the 1999 NIE. That consensus report contained the following dissent from one of the intelligence agencies involved in producing the NIE: Some analysts believe that the prominence given to missiles countries ``could'' develop gives more credence than is warranted to developments that may prove implausible. The ``could'' standard was one of three major changes made to assessment methodology. The other shifts were to substantially reduce the range of missiles considered serious threats by shifting from threats to 48 continental States to threats to any of the land mass of the 50 States and changing the time line from when a country would first deploy a long-range missile to when a country could first test a long-range missile. The geographic criterion change had the effect of shortening missile range by some 3,000 miles, the distance from Seattle to the western-most tip of Alaska's Aleutian Islands. In effect, this means the North Korea's medium-range ballistic missile the Taepodong-1 could be considered the same threat as an ICBM. The time line shift represents a decrease of five years, which previous estimates said was the difference between first test and likely deployment. Moreover, the new NIE's don't require a successful test. The net effect of these three changes was to shift the goal posts in the direction indicated by the Rumsfeld Commission. These shifts account for almost all of the differences between the 1999 and 2001 NIE's and earlier estimates. Rather than representing some new, dramatic increase in the ballistic missile threat, they represent lowered standards for judging the threat. Despite administration optimism about developing BMD and the prospects for quick deployment, prominent scientists and missile experts remain skeptical. Here are a few examples. Richard Garwin of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Rumsfeld Commission, and a leading expert in military applications of science, is dubious about the administration's approach to BMD and its rationale for pursuing it. A report in the Dallas Morning News quotes Garwin as questioning the emphasis on destroying missiles in mid-course, warning ``it's not a sensible thing to do.'' He says the major flaw is that an enemy can defeat the system by such means as concealing the payload bomb in a balloon the size of a house so that hitting the balloon would have little chance of disabling the weapon. Deploying numerous, sophisticated decoys would also be an effective counter-measure. Garwin suspects DOD money is going to the mid-course approach because its proponents aren't really hoping to use BMD against rogue states as they claim, but are aiming at ``China first, then Russia.'' He reasons that while ships or land-based launch sites would be suitable for shooting down Iraqi or North Korean missiles in boost-phase, they would be useless against Russia and China. A mid-course strategy, however, could counter a limited missile attack from those nations. The implications are chilling. I hope and pray that Garwin is wrong about BMD's true mission, because if Russia and China reach the same conclusion, we may be in for a renewed nuclear arms race. Dr. Garwin now questions the rationale for BMD, despite his participation in the Rumsfeld Commission which assessed the ballistic missile threat to the United States. He was quoted in a June 12 news wire report as stating: ``Fifteen million . . . cargo containers enter the United States every year with a minute chance of being inspected. Why should a nation with a few ICBM's risk their being destroyed pre- emptively when other means are available for delivery?'' Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate in physics, is one of the most prominent and trenchant scientific critics of BMD. He strongly believes that it would be smarter to put the billions pouring into missile defense into other homeland security efforts. Weinberg points out that if the U.S. deploys BMD, intelligence analysts estimate China will sharply expand its arsenal from about 20 ICBM's to 200 or so. Should this occur both India and Pakistan would probably also expand their nuclear arsenals. As we all know, the last thing the world needs is a spiraling nuclear arms race in South Asia. Weinberg believes a BMD system would be fatally flawed. He contends that missile defenses are easy to defeat. The attacker surrounding his warheads with decoys, he says always has the last move. He makes a persuasive case that a ballistic missile attack on the United States is an unlikely threat. The real danger we face, he says, is the spread of nuclear material that can be set off without missiles. He concludes that President Bush is pursuing ``a missile defense undertaken for its own sake, rather than any application it may have in defending our own country.'' While I doubt this is an accurate characterization of the President's motives, I agree with Weinberg's conclusion that the spread of nuclear materials is now a much more serious threat to our country than a ballistic missile attack. Both distinguished missile experts and the media have opposed the Administration's new secrecy policy which will classify previously unclassified materials regarding targets and countermeasures to be used in flight intercept test of the Ground-Based Mid-course Defense system. Such secrecy is both undesirable and unnecessary. BMD development has benefitted much from public scrutiny by physicists and other scientists, weapons experts, watchdog groups, and the press. Cutting off access would be clearly counterproductive. Philip Coyle, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense and DOD's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation from 1994-2001 is one of the nation's foremost experts on missile defense. He argues that it will take some 20 developmental tests costing $100 million a piece and may take years before testing with realistic decoys can start. Coyle believes secrecy is premature since there's ``no danger'' the test program will be in a position to ``give away any secrets'' for years to come. Coyle also is dismayed that MDA is withholding information from the Pentagon's own independent review offices, such as the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Current laws give the Director rights to unfettered access to all major DOD acquisition programs. Who can argue with Coyle when he says that if independent review of testing is stifled DOD itself won't be able ``to make reasonable judgements about the program's viability.'' The final issue I want to raise is the matter of the adequacy of current testing. Two years ago I joined Senator Durbin in introducing an amendment to require more realistic testing of the national missile defense system. At the time I stated on the floor that missile defense testing used at that time proved little or nothing: ``Current testing determines whether or not the system works against cooperative targets on a test range. This methodology is insufficient to determine the technological feasibility of the system against likely threats. At present, even if the tests had been hailed as total successes, they would have proved nothing more than the system is unproven against real threats. . . . Current testing does not take countermeasures into account.'' Unfortunately, what I said was true 2 years ago is still true today. Philip Coyle has recently said that the missile defense program ``is not at the point where the types of decoys being used have even begun to be representative of the likely enemy countermeasures against missile defense.'' He noted that so far the decoys used have been ``round balloons which don't look at all like a target re-entry vehicle.'' Coyle who may know more about BMD testing than anyone, concluded ``it may be the end of this decade before . . . testing with `real world decoys' can begin.'' The administration plans to rush a rudimentary missile defense system into the field beginning in 2004. Few scientists believe that it will be an effective system. Dr. David Wright, Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists and an MIT research physicist recently charged that ``rather than waiting until the technical issues are addressed, it is rushing [to deploy] immature defense systems. . . . These systems will not provide `emergency capability' against real-world threats, only the illusion of capability.'' I couldn't agree more with Dr. Wright. I still agree with the U.S. intelligence community, noted scientists and missile experts that ballistic missiles are one of the least likely threats we face. Much more probably threats are WMD attacks using planes, boats, trucks, or suitcases. Eminent scientists are skeptical of Administration optimism about prospects for developing and quickly deploying BMD. I fully share their skepticism. The new DOD secrecy policy which will classify previously unclassified material regarding targets and countermeasure used in BMD is undesirable and indefensible. I strongly oppose MDA withholding information from the Pentagon's own independent review offices and applaud the Committee bill for requiring these offices to provide Congress and DOD with annual assessments of the military utility and potential operational effectiveness of major missile defense programs. In conclusion, I believe in maintaining a strong national defense. We face a number of credible threats in the world today, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We must make sure we carefully identify the threats we face and tailor our defense spending to meet them. We could do a better job of that than this bill does, and I hope that as we move to conference, the committee will make every effort to transfer funds from relatively low-priority programs to those designed to meet the urgent and immediate anti- terrorism and defense of our forces.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I am inconveniencing my colleague, I will follow him if that is better.

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I add 10 seconds to what Senator Kennedy said. This would have to be confirmed. There was a wonderful judge in Minnesota who said to me there is a higher correlation between high school dropouts and incarceration than cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Just think about that.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think it is important to come to the floor of the Senate today and briefly respond to the President's statement of 2 days ago on the Middle East. I want to say to the President that I think his vision is very important. His statement has a very strong beginning and a very strong end. There is one gap in his statement that concerns me and about which I wish to discuss. The President, rightfully so, talked about the need for reform and the need for democracy for the Palestinian people. He is quite right to put on this emphasis. Right now, what we also have to focus on is how we change the environment on the ground, so that the elections that our President has called for actually lead to a more responsible leadership. I think this is a gap in what the President outlined on Monday. That is to say, we might not like the result we get from the democratic elections he has called for. It could well be that Chairman Arafat can say right now: Fine, I will be chosen, no question about it. Some have suggested that Hamas might win such elections, or even worse. From my point of view, one of the things we have to understand is that none of this will work in terms of the vision the President laid out--two states and two peoples living peacefully, side by side with secure borders. None of this will work unless the conditions on the ground are changed so that indeed when there are elections, we see a responsible leadership elected to office. When I talk about the need for ``conditions on the ground'' being changed, there are at least three factors, if you will. Factors: One, people have to have hope. The Palestinian people have to have some hope. Two, there has to be a growing economy. Three, people have to be able to move from place to place. So what I want to emphasize is, yes, when the President says the terror has to stop, we can all agree, and we should be strong and united in making sure we say that on the floor of the Senate and say it in every possible way. I also think it is true that all parties have to be engaged. There is a role for European leadership and a role for Arab leadership. Certainly, Israel and the United States have to be engaged, also. That is the good part of the President's statement. I think there has to be active support from the U.S., the EU, and the Arab States in strengthening indigenous Palestinian pressure for reform, in advancing the consolidation and control of these competing militias, and insisting on the transparency of government and judicial operations and on more effective leadership. Second, we have to attend to urgent humanitarian needs. Basic public services are breaking down. Power cuts are frequent and there are shortages in a range of products, from school books to critical medical supplies. Ordinary Palestinians are unable to get the medical treatment they need. The Palestinian economy has to be allowed to develop. We have to rebuild the physical infrastructure and revitalize the economy as the Palestinian Authority is effectively bankrupt, and any semblance of a modern economy is disappearing. We need to understand that vital social, economic, and security functions have broken down. This is leaving an enormous vacuum. I fear that far more radical and more extremist groups would be eager to fill this vacuum. I believe this was an important missing piece in what the President said. The conditions on the ground for the Palestinian people have to change if, in fact, the democracy that we call for and the reform we call for will lead to the election of what we would consider to be responsible leadership. We are going to have to be very engaged in this process. Israel is going to have to step up to the plate and be very engaged. Yes, we need to be clear on the need to end the terror; yes, we need to be clear on the need for reform; but also, yes, we need to be clear in calling for the sustained and vigorous engagement of key actors--the United States, Israel, moderate Arab leadership, the European Union, and we must be clear that the conditions on the ground change. All you have to do is read the paper every day and look at the conditions on the ground. You see a complete lack of hope among Palestinians. You see people not being able to move. People have no access to jobs or to schools. There is very little hope, and this is not the stuff of social stability. We need to address these issues if, in fact, we are to be able to get this crisis back on the political track, with some sort of political process that truly might lead to an end to this violence. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin for last night coming to the floor and talking about Justin Dart, probably one of the greatest 10 individuals I have met in my life, for what he has done for people with disabilities. His courage and leadership was quite unbelievable. He has inspired many of us. I send my love from the Senate floor to his family.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rebecca Kockler and Brian Hanley be allowed to be on the floor for the rest of the day.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from North Dakota in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there was an interesting piece in the Washington Post this morning, a senior aide to Republicans on the House side saying we want to--something to the effect of--write a prescription drug plan that basically is what the pharmaceutical industry wants. I look at the House bill, and I report to the Senate that is exactly what we have: A bill that is made for the industry. The White House has no plan. They are talking about a discount comparable to going to the movie and you get a dollar or two off the ticket, but it has nothing to do with whether or not we will have prescription drugs that will be affordable. The House Republicans have said low-income people earning roughly under $11,000 are not going to have to pay anything. But when you look at the fine print, that's not true. If you have burial expenses worth $1,500 or more, if you have a car that is worth more than $4,500, then all of a sudden you might not be eligible for the protections for the low-income. That is stingy. Then the thing that people are worried about is the catastrophic expenses. We must have a prescription drug plan that really responds to what we are hearing from all of our constituents: ``Senator you must keep the premiums low; you have to keep the deductibles and the copays affordable; and you have to cover catastrophic expenses''--that is what people are terrified of, big expenses they can't afford. What this Republican plan says is: We will provide a little coverage, up to $2,000. But between $2,000 and $3,800 we won't cover anything. That is nonsensical. It certainly is not a step forward for Minnesotans; it is a huge leap backwards. I also want to mention to colleagues that the Republicans basically don't want to have a plan built into Medicare. Now, I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from South Dakota, you can appreciate this with a smile. The Republicans don't want to have anything built into Medicare because they are scared that it might put restrictions on drug companies' price gouging. That is what Republicans are scared of. As a result, they say: We are going to farm it out to Medicare HMOs and to private insurance plans. But the private insurance plans are saying: We are not going to do this because the only people who will buy the prescription drug only plans are the ones who need it, and we need some people in the plan who don't need it; otherwise, we cannot make any money on it; it won't work. Then they say the monthly premiums will be $35 and the deductibles will be $250. It turns out that this is not the case. Those numbers are merely suggestions. It could be that the deductible in one part of my state is $250, and $500 in another part of Minnesota, and $750 in some other state. I want to say on the floor of the Senate that you have these pharmaceutical companies pouring in all this money at the $30 million fundraising extravaganza last night--$250,000 a crack, or whatever, that I am reading about. Then you have some of the people saying we are going to basically write something that suits their interest. This is what we are dealing with. I will keep pushing hard. I know you have to get 60 votes, and I know some people are going to be reluctant about this because we are going to have to take on the prerogatives of drug companies. But I think we ought to do the following: First of all, for low-income people, we ought to say, you are not going to pay anything, because they cannot afford it. Then we should set a 20 percent beneficiary copay. I would rather see us do that. Then we should set a catastrophic cap at $2,000 a year; after that, you don't have to pay anymore of the cost of your prescription drugs. That is good catastrophic coverage. That makes sense. How is it affordable? In two ways. First: Prescription drug reimportation from Canada, with strict FDA safety guidelines. There is no reason that Minnesotans, and people all over the United States, should not be able to reimport prescription drugs that were made in the U.S. back to the U.S. Pharmacists could do it, and families could too and get a 30-, 40-, 50-percent discount. There is no reason to vote no--except the pharmaceutical companies don't want it. Second: and the Chair is interested in this as well--there is no reason the Federal Government's Department of Health and Human Services cannot represent senior citizens to become a bargaining agent and say: We represent 40 million Americans, and we want the best buy. We want a commitment from the industry to reduce the prices. Give us the best buy. Charge us what you charge other countries, charge us what you charge veterans, charge us what you charge Medicaid. We can get huge reductions in costs and huge savings. Mr. President, I have been talking about a book and Tom Wicker wrote it--it's fictional, but based on the life of Senator Estes Kefauver and the way the pharmaceutical industry did him in. The companies have become too greedy, arrogant, and people in this country have had it, and it is time for us to make it crystal clear that this Capitol and this political process belong to the people of South Dakota and Minnesota, not these pharmaceutical companies. The House plan is not a great step forward. It is a great leap backward. We are going to have a big debate on the floor in July. I cannot wait for it. I think a lot of these positions we take are going to be real clear in terms of whom exactly do we represent, the pharmaceutical industry or the people in our States. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is interesting to follow Senator Feingold because both of us have raised plenty of questions about what we consider to be waste in the Pentagon budget, and I will be relatively brief. I strongly support Chairman Levin's amendment because I think it corrects serious flaws in the process by which the Department of Defense summarily decided to terminate the Crusader without any prior consultation with the Army or the Congress. That is what bothers me the most. I have long been a critic of wasteful and unnecessary defense spending, particularly when it diverts needed resources from pressing operational and readiness needs of our Armed Forces. I also strongly believe in fair, transparent, and informed Government decision-making, which did not occur in the decision to cancel the Crusader. For me, this is as clear a kind of question as we can have before us. The Army has stated for over a decade that there is need for an indirect, long-range, rapid-fire system to support ground troops, the very purpose for which the Crusader was developed. Far from being a cold war system, the Crusader's development began in 1995, after the cold war ended and Iraq was defeated. The program is on schedule, on budget, and the system's weight has been cut substantially. As a result, the Bush administration's original fiscal year 2003 budget request was for full funding for the Crusader. Three Defense Secretaries, three Army Secretaries, three Army Chiefs of Staff, and numerous officers of the field have given testimony in support of the system. In the last few months, a parade of administration officials have testified, including Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, to congressional defense committees supporting the Crusader. Yet 2 months after the testimony by top Army brass, the Secretary of Defense abruptly cancelled the program. The Secretary's abrupt decision to terminate the Crusader was made in secret and without consultation with even high-level Army officials. It clearly did not follow the normal review within the Pentagon and looks, by its speed, designed to avoid normal scrutiny by Congress. We cannot give up that oversight. The decision was made without consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, without consultation with the Army, and without consultation with Members of Congress. An argument can be made one way or another ultimately about this weapons system, but for any weapons system I would like to see a careful review process. I think that is critically important. The decision to halt the program and the President's subsequent request to reallocate funds--not to just reduce funds but to reallocate funds--was an extraordinary flip-flop in the administration's position. I will not apologize for being concerned about potential job losses in Minnesota should the program be cut. I recently met with workers and officials at the United Defense Industries plant in Minnesota. The point is: Maybe, like it or not, a decision will be made, upon a careful review process, that this weapons system makes no sense. Maybe the decision will be made, with a highly skilled workforce, that there can be other uses made with other technology and that indeed all kinds of decisions can be made and different directions can be taken. I do not know. What I do know is these workers are owed fairness and decent treatment by the Government. They deserve their day in court. Minnesota firms and workers who are most affected by this decision should have a chance to make their case within the normal transparent policy process, not a closed process, not a secret backroom process, which is all we have seen so far. I need to repeat that point. I have taken all kinds of unpopular votes on all kinds of weapons systems, and at the end of the day if I am convinced there is not merit to this, then that is the way I will vote. But there has not been any careful review process. There has not been any analysis of: How much does it cost to cancel? What do we get from the investment? What are the alternatives? Where is the money going to be spent? We can hardly blame men and women, a highly skilled workforce, for saying to me or to any Senator or anybody who represents them: At least call for a decent, fair, thorough, and rational review process. This is our skilled work. We are proud of what we do. We believe the weapons system has great merit, but, Paul, we understand. When I went to visit people, I said: You know my positions. But they are saying: At the very minimum, we deserve our day in court. There ought to be a careful review process. There cannot be a 180-degree turn, with the Secretary of Defense announcing the program is cancelled, period. Senator Levin's amendment is all about process. Process sounds boring. Senator Levin's amendment is about fairness. It is about fairness. I hope it will get strong support. Responsible defense spending decisions, especially those that have decades-long consequences, ought to be made only after a careful analysis and consideration of the need to have U.S. forces as well equipped and as well trained as possible. That is what happens to some Members critical of the expenditures and weapons systems. We are accused of being weak on defense. That is not the point. The point is, there is not any Senator here who does not want our Armed Forces to be well trained and well equipped. The question is what weapon systems make sense and how best do we do the job. The Pentagon so far offered scant evidence to viable alternatives to the Crusader. It seems clear the alternatives they have vaguely suggested--largely missile and precision-guided munitions programs in the early stage of research and development--will not adequately replace the capabilities of the Crusader. I want the case made before we cancel a program and throw people out of work. Further, they could cost more, with a higher risk they could not be delivered on time. The cost of the termination alone of the Crusader is estimated to be $285 million. In short, colleagues, the administration has failed to provide to Congress with any comprehensive analysis of alternatives in terms of technology, readiness, operational effectiveness, costs, and deliverability. The Levin amendment is not putting this off forever. It is not: postpone, postpone, postpone. Rather, it is saying we ought to have the careful review process. Whether it is this weapons system or any weapons system, this amendment is all about setting an important precedent if we are going to carry out our responsibilities for careful review. We have invested $2 billion in the Crusader. The Pentagon owes the American people, at the very least, an open and transparent review before it abruptly cancels an otherwise good artillery system. We have invested $2 billion. Perhaps the case can be made this system should be canceled; I am not so sure, but that is beside the point. The point is, Where has there been an open and transparent review of this weapons system? That is something that we request. That is a matter of elementary fairness and also a matter of the way we ought to be making these decisions. The Levin amendment is an important and positive step forward out of the mess. It requires the Army Chief of Staff to conduct a serious study of the best way to provide for the Army's need for indirect fire support. At the same time, it provides the Secretary of Defense, following the study, a full range of options. These include termination, to continue funding of the Crusader, to funding alternative systems to meet the battlefield requirements. This is a pretty reasonable amendment. If instead the Senate passes an amendment that immediately terminates the Crusader program, it will validate an unacceptable decisionmaking process by our Government, by our Pentagon. It will also lead to the loss of the Crusader scientific and engineering team and its technology. This would occur without saving our Government anything in termination costs. In contrast, if the Senate accepts the chairman's amendment, there would be an orderly process, and we come to final judgment. This would happen without losing the extraordinary team and the technology in the meantime and without adding to the Government's eventual cost if termination is the final option chosen. However one feels about the Crusader itself, the Levin amendment is about something different--about the best way to restore fair, transparent, and informed Government decisionmaking to the process, which has been the opposite so far. Colleagues, I don't know that I need to repeat what I have said. I don't think I could be clearer in my presentation. I make this appeal on the basis of the way these decisions ought to be made. We deserve the transparency. We as legislators deserve an open, transparent process, much less the people we represent. To me, this is a synthesis or marriage that makes sense, No. 1, to best represent people in my State who are saying: We are going to be losing our jobs. We think we have done good work and, at the very minimum, can't you as a Senator demand there be an orderly and transparent process and we have our day in court. I should do that. For every Senator, Democrat or Republican, for whatever position you may or may not have right now based upon what information you have about the Crusader, this is just a matter of overview, of accountability of where we figure into the decisionmaking. I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Regarding the Middle East, I make two points, although in a few minutes it is hard to give justice to what is happening. First, yesterday was a horrible day not just for Israel and Israelis but for Israel's neighbors, as well: The murder of 19 innocent people, and God knows how many were injured. Some of those people, young men and women, were teenagers. Murder is never legitimate. That is what this is. This is terroristic murder of innocent people. It is not for me, as a Senator, to come to the floor and say the people of Israel or supporters in the United States are not to have indignation. We should condemn it. I condemn it on the floor of the Senate. I condemn it. Second, Prime Minister Rabin said when confronted with terrorist attacks, something like: We will go after the terrorists; we will defend ourselves, and we will go forward with the peace process--in other words, we are not going to let the extremists, Hamas terrorists and others, completely destroy the peace process or completely prevent us from getting back on a political track. It is extremely important. I support what has been courageous work of Secretary of State Powell. I believe the Secretary is right in what I think he is proposing; that is that our Government has to play a positive and proactive role. We cannot zig and zag. It cannot be a contradictory policy. We should be strong in our condemnation of the terrorism, of the murder of innocent people, and we also should be a part of the denunciation and the enunciation of a political goal that goes in the direction of two states, side by side, people living side by side with one another, in secure borders. Ultimately, that is what is going to happen. The question is, How wide and how deep a river of blood has to be spilled beforehand? I know the dynamics are swirling around in terms of domestic politics, but I believe it is extremely important the President, the administration, step forward with our support and be clear in our condemnation and be clear in the call for demands of reform within the Palestinian Authority and the rest. But at the same time we should not come away from the role we can play in laying out a political goal, laying out the goal of two states side by side and trying to bring the parties together. With the status quo, the present course, more Israeli children and Palestinian children will die. There have been innocent Palestinians who have died, innocent Palestinians who also have, unfortunately, been killed, though never deliberately. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. WELLSTONE. It is extremely important that this administration lay out this goal. It is extremely important the President be strong. It is extremely important we condemn the violence but we also be part of the political process. I believe the vast majority of people, Israelis and their neighbors, do not want to see this continuing killing of innocent people. Enough. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for this amendment. Let me start out speaking for a moment about the underlying legislation. Then I want to speak about the Nelson amendment. I am glad the Senate is finally acting on the whole question of affordable terrorism insurance. Over the past 6 to 8 months, I have heard from developers, lenders, and retailers in my State who are saying this is getting very expensive. Basically a lot of construction projects have been stalled or have fallen through the cracks. Some of the major landmarks in Minnesota, such as The Mall of America, have had trouble with their lenders. So I want to be honest with my colleagues, to me this is really about jobs. If the insurance is not there or it is too expensive, then the projects do not get built and planned development may not happen; jobs are lost. Therefore, I think the underlying bill is important. That is why I support the Nelson amendment. What the Nelson amendment says is if the Federal Government is basically going to assume the financial risk of a terrorist act, then we should ensure that the insurance industry is passing on this reduced risk in the form of lower insurance premiums to businesses. The background of my colleague from Florida is in this very area, and he can speak about this with more expertise, but he is saying we do not want to end up giving private insurance companies a blank check to gouge businesses. That is the real danger. In other words, if the problem the Senate is trying to address is the skyrocketing costs of terrorism insurance, and we address it by reducing the liability of the insurance industry to acts of terrorism, then we should make sure the loop is closed and businesses are not charged exorbitant rates for insurance the United States taxpayers are actually providing. I believe that is what the Nelson amendment says. Therefore, I think it is common sense. I think it will make terrorism insurance more available. I think it will prevent the gouging of businesses. I think it will prevent us from giving just a blank check to this insurance industry. That is why I support the amendment. I think this amendment is good for our businesses. I also think this amendment is in the spirit of the underlying bill. I think it does not in any way, shape, or form--I say to my colleague from Florida--negate or undercut this legislation. I just think it strengthens it. I think it closes a loophole and provides the additional protection we need to have, to make sure that we, the taxpayers, are not underwriting the insurance business which then gouges business. I believe that is what this is about--strong probusiness and strong proconsumer. If I could just take another minute or two, I ask unanimous consent that I may take 5 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 2617 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2002. This legislation would protect the viability of independent service station and repair shops and ensure that consumers will continue to have a choice of automotive service providers. The 1990 Clean Air Act mandated that vehicle manufacturers install computer systems to monitor emissions in 1994 model year cars and beyond. Today, many vehicle systems are integrated into the car's computer system, making auto repair an increasingly ``high tech'' business and making access to the computer and the information it contains vital to the ability to perform repairs. Increasingly, however, independent repair shops are being barred access to the codes and diagnostic tools necessary to repair newer model cars. The effect is to reduce consumer choice for auto repair services, and to endanger the livelihood thousands of small, family owned repair shops across the country. On April 10, I met with a group of repair shop owners from Minnesota. The explained that new practices by some auto manufactures were preventing them from competing on an even playing field. One thing we don't need is another industry where all the little guys, the small, independent businesses, are driven out. This is terrible for our communities. And reduced competition means higher prices for consumers Specifically, the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act would simply require a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold in the United States to disclose to the vehicle owner, a repair facility, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, the information necessary to diagnose, service, or repair the vehicle. The bill bars the FTC from requiring disclosure of any information entitled to protection as a manufacturer's trade secret. This legislation is an example of what is good for small business is good for the consumer. The bill is endorsed by the 44 million member American Automobile Association, AAA, as well as the Automotive Service Association, the trade association of automotive service professionals. To reiterate, I want to introduce a bill and tell colleagues about it. I have sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. This is very much a pro-consumer bill as well. It is called the Motor Vehicle and Owners Right to Repair Act. There has to be a better title. Basically, this is the issue. The automotive industry, for 100 years, has always shared information with mechanics. But post-1994, you have cars with very computerized systems. All of a sudden, the automotive industry is now saying to independent mechanics, we will not share with you the information about the computer system so you can get into the computer system, do the diagnosis and the repair, in which case I think it is a blatant anticompetitive practice. It puts the independent mechanics, the small guys, out of business. In addition, it says to the consumers: Listen, you might want to take your car back to the dealership for repair, but now that is your only choice because you may want to go to the neighborhood mechanic you have worked with for years and he might want your business, but we are going to make it impossible for him to get your business. We are going to make it impossible for you to go there. I like this piece of legislation because it is little guy versus big guy. It feels right to me. At 5 feet, 5 inches, I like the little guys. In April, some mechanics came by our office and talked with Perry Lang, who works with me, and they said this is happening to us and asked for some help. I say on the floor of the Senate two things: No. 1, I am circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. I hope to get a lot of support. I think there will be a lot of support. This is going on in the House with a lot of Republicans as well as Democrats. The second thing that I am saying to the industry today on the floor of the Senate--and I think they are watching this carefully--is we are going to get a good head of steam on this. If you want to sit down and negotiate an agreement with the mechanics that is fair to these independent mechanics, go ahead. Then we won't have to pass the legislation. But I could not believe when I heard the report of what they are dealing with. Again, you have a blatant anticompetitive practice of the industry basically saying we will not share with you any information about our computerized systems. If the industry wants to say there is some kind of a trade patent secret which they can't share, they can go to the FTC and get approval for that. Otherwise, for 100 years, this has not happened. Now we get into a blatant collusion, anticompetitive practice that is unfair to the independent mechanics who a lot of Senators know as friends and as small businesspeople. I am aiming to stop it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2002. This legislation would protect the viability of independent service station and repair shops and ensure that consumers will continue to have a choice of automotive service providers. The 1990 Clean Air Act mandated that vehicle manufacturers install computer systems to monitor emissions in 1994 model year cars and beyond. Today, many vehicle systems are integrated into the car's computer system, making auto repair an increasingly ``high tech'' business and making access to the computer and the information it contains vital to the ability to perform repairs. Increasingly, however, independent repair shops are being barred access to the codes and diagnostic tools necessary to repair newer model cars. The effect is to reduce consumer choice for auto repair services, and to endanger the livelihood thousands of small, family owned repair shops across the country. On April 10, I met with a group of repair shop owners from Minnesota. The explained that new practices by some auto manufactures were preventing them from competing on an even playing field. One thing we don't need is another industry where all the little guys, the small, independent businesses, are driven out. This is terrible for our communities. And reduced competition means higher prices for consumers Specifically, the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act would simply require a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold in the United States to disclose to the vehicle owner, a repair facility, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, the information necessary to diagnose, service, or repair the vehicle. The bill bars the FTC from requiring disclosure of any information entitled to protection as a manufacturer's trade secret. This legislation is an example of what is good for small business is good for the consumer. The bill is endorsed by the 44 million member American Automobile Association, AAA, as well as the Automotive Service Association, the trade association of automotive service professionals. To reiterate, I want to introduce a bill and tell colleagues about it. I have sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. This is very much a pro-consumer bill as well. It is called the Motor Vehicle and Owners Right to Repair Act. There has to be a better title. Basically, this is the issue. The automotive industry, for 100 years, has always shared information with mechanics. But post-1994, you have cars with very computerized systems. All of a sudden, the automotive industry is now saying to independent mechanics, we will not share with you the information about the computer system so you can get into the computer system, do the diagnosis and the repair, in which case I think it is a blatant anticompetitive practice. It puts the independent mechanics, the small guys, out of business. In addition, it says to the consumers: Listen, you might want to take your car back to the dealership for repair, but now that is your only choice because you may want to go to the neighborhood mechanic you have worked with for years and he might want your business, but we are going to make it impossible for him to get your business. We are going to make it impossible for you to go there. I like this piece of legislation because it is little guy versus big guy. It feels right to me. At 5 feet, 5 inches, I like the little guys. In April, some mechanics came by our office and talked with Perry Lang, who works with me, and they said this is happening to us and asked for some help. I say on the floor of the Senate two things: No. 1, I am circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. I hope to get a lot of support. I think there will be a lot of support. This is going on in the House with a lot of Republicans as well as Democrats. The second thing that I am saying to the industry today on the floor of the Senate--and I think they are watching this carefully--is we are going to get a good head of steam on this. If you want to sit down and negotiate an agreement with the mechanics that is fair to these independent mechanics, go ahead. Then we won't have to pass the legislation. But I could not believe when I heard the report of what they are dealing with. Again, you have a blatant anticompetitive practice of the industry basically saying we will not share with you any information about our computerized systems. If the industry wants to say there is some kind of a trade patent secret which they can't share, they can go to the FTC and get approval for that. Otherwise, for 100 years, this has not happened. Now we get into a blatant collusion, anticompetitive practice that is unfair to the independent mechanics who a lot of Senators know as friends and as small businesspeople. I am aiming to stop it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy Hertel be allowed to be on the floor of the Senate for the duration of the debate on this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first let me rise to disagree with my colleague, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. In the State of Minnesota, in 1999, there were 636 families who paid the estate tax. If we pass the Conrad amendment, which says for a family we are targeting $7 million, we will have exactly 36 families left in our State who will be paying this tax. We had the Dorgan amendment that said if someone is going to be a family farmer or have a small business, and they are going to pass it on, and one is going to take over the farm and the small business, they are exempt. That is what it is all about when it comes to fairness. Instead, what we have is a proposal that I yesterday labeled win/win or lose/lose, dependent upon one's values and priorities. If one believes they should bleed the economy over the next 20 years to the tune of a trillion dollars, and all of those benefits will go to multimillionaires and billionaires, and at the same time have to raid the Social Security trust fund--we just raised the debt ceiling $450 billion, and some of my colleagues who voted against it are voting for eliminating this tax. So if they believe the benefits should go to the top of the top of the top, and in addition they want to bleed this economy to the tune of a trillion dollars over the next 20 years so we will not be able to live up to our Social Security obligations, we will take it out of the Social Security trust fund; we will not have the money for affordable prescription drug coverage; we will not make the investment in the health and skills and intellect and character of children; we will not invest in education; there will be nothing for affordable housing; we will not be able to do anything about deplorable conditions in nursing homes. If they believe this and believe there is nothing the Government can or should do, this is win/win. I said it yesterday. This is lose/lose for the people of Minnesota. This is lose/lose for probably 99.99 percent of the population. This is lose/lose for people who believe we should have tax fairness, that we should target these breaks to small businesses and family farmers. This is lose/lose for people who believe there is a role Government can play when it comes to the improvement of people's lives and that we have an important challenge before us: Affordable prescription drugs, good education, investment in our schools, our children, making sure Social Security will be there for people. These are the priorities. This proposal is very clear in what its ultimate goal is, which is above and beyond massive tax unfairness. It will so erode the revenue base and will prevent any initiative in these areas: Prescription drug coverage, education, health care coverage, affordable housing. By definition, it is fiscally irresponsible. So on both counts, it is a massive subsidy, an inverse relationship to need. All together, 36 families in Minnesota will not be helped if we go forward with the Conrad proposal. If we had gone forward with the Dorgan proposal, every family in Minnesota but 36 families would be helped. This proposal is so skewed toward the top of the top of the top and at the same time undercuts our ability to make any of the investments we need to make to do better as a nation. I hope my colleagues will vote against the Gramm proposal and will vote for the Conrad amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I opposed full repeal of the estate tax, but I supported a commonsense compromise to cap the estate tax exemption at a reasonable level for all families, and eliminate the tax completely for family farmers and small business owners. Full repeal of the estate tax is hugely expensive, it will cost nearly a trillion dollars over the next 20 years, it is grossly unfair because it benefits only the tiny number of Americans who pay the estate tax under current law. In fact, in 1999 only 636 Minnesotans paid any estate tax what so ever. Only 36 of those estates were valued at $5 million or more. This is simply not a burden that falls on many families. In contrast, many rely on Social Security. Over 740,000 Minnesotans currently receive Social Security. The vast majority of these are retired seniors, others are severely disabled. For many it is their only source of income. I find it outrageous that colleagues are proposing to use the Social Security surplus, which nearly a million Minnesotans rely upon, to give a massive tax break to the heirs of a handful of Americans. Nationally, only 1.6 percent of all estates were made up with significant small business assets, and only 1.4 percent had significant farm assets. This means that virtually all the estate tax is paid by extremely wealthy people who do not own farms or small businesses. It also means that we could eliminate the estate tax for small businesses and farms and not engage in a massive raid on the Treasury. Proponents of last year's massive tax cut portrayed the legislation as completely protecting small businesses and family farms from the estate tax. But as a cost saving gimmick, the law only does so for only one year. Business owners were used as pawns last year, and they are again this year. Now they are frustrated trying to plan for their families' futures around this scheme and they shouldn't have to be. I supported a commonsense compromise that would have capped the estate exemption at a reasonable level, $8 million for a married couple, lifting the burden of the estate tax from 98 percent of estates, but maintaining the tax for large, wealthy estates. In addition, the Dorgan amendment would have totally exempted family- owned small business and farm assets from the estate tax if the family of the current owner wishes to continue to operate the business or farm. Because this relief would have been permanent, business owners can plan their affairs with confidence and security. And this complete repeal for businesses and farms would be effective next year, unlike the republican proposal where family business owners would have to wait until 2010. In an ideal world I would have written the Dorgan amendment differently. I would strengthen the family-owned business provision to ensure than only smaller business and farms, with 200 employees or less would qualify for this exemption. But I voted for the Dorgan amendment because it is still far better than full repeal. It retains the estate tax for the ultra-rich, but would protect small business owners and family farmers. And it would save hundreds of billions over the next 20 years compared to full repeal. Let me also point out one final irony in this debate. I mentioned yesterday the bizarreness of colleagues voting against raising the debt limit, and then in the same day turning around and supporting a bill that would raise the national debt by hundreds of thousands more. Today's irony is that this is supposed to be a debate about small businesses, but my friends on the other side are opposing the Dorgan amendment that gives permanent relief from the estate tax from small businesses and family farmers right now--compared to 7 years from now under the Gramm approach. Let me repeat that, my colleagues on the other side say they are for the small business owner. They say they are for the family farmer. Yet they are opposing immediate relief for small business owners and farmers. Why? To protect their tax breaks for billionaires. Small businesses and farmers are the pawns in this debate. They have literally been used by those who want to give billionaires a tax break. I don't know if there is a single person in this body who would oppose giving permanent, targeted estate tax relief to small business owners and family farmers. I think it could pass 100 to 0. But it didn't because if the supporters of full repeal let the small business owner get relief then they lose this issue. And they won't get repeal for billionaires. And they would rather have the issue to campaign on, and they aren't going to let the little guy on Main Street get his tax break unless they can get it for the fat cat on Wall Street. The Dorgan amendment should be an eye opener for small business owners and farmers. It betrays the real agenda behind full repeal of the estate tax. It's not about the little guy. It is not about the shopkeeper, the farmer, the contractor, the wholesaler. They are the hostages in this debate. I will not jeopardize Social Security--which tens of millions of Americans rely upon for their retirement--to grant tax breaks to the heirs of multi-millionaires and billionaires. We cannot afford to give a few lucky Americans a tax free inheritance of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars and protect the tens of millions of Americans and over 740,000 Minnesotans who rely on Social Security. But we can afford to shield small estates, small businesses, and family farms from the estate tax at the same time we safeguard the retirement security of all Minnesotans. That is what I voted to do.