Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Relicensing Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Norm Coleman in introducing the United Nations Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act of 2005.

United Nations reform is not a new issue. The structure and role of the United Nations have been debated in our country almost continuously since the U.N. was established in 1945. But in 2005, we may have a unique opportunity to improve the operations of the UN. The revelations of the Oil-For-Food scandal and the urgency of strengthening global cooperation to address terrorism, the AIDS crisis, nuclear proliferation, and many other international problems have created momentum in favor of constructive reforms at the UN.

We have ample evidence that the United Nations is in need of reform. The Foreign Relations Committee held the first Congressional hearing on the UN's Oil-for-Food scandal a year ago last April. Since that time, through the work of Paul Volcker, Senator Coleman, and many others, we have learned much more about the extent of the corruption and mismanagement involved.

Senator Coleman's hard work as a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has provided the Senate with extensive knowledge of what went wrong in the Oil-for-Food Program. We have combined efforts to offer the Senate a top-down/bottom-up comprehensive look at what needs to be reformed if the United Nations is going to be a highly effective institution in this century. I would like to thank staff on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations who have collaborated for many hours during the past several weeks as we have finalized this bill.

We know that billions of dollars that should have been spent on humanitarian needs in Iraq were siphoned off by Saddam Hussein's regime through a system of surcharges, bribes, and kickbacks. This corruption depended upon members of the UN Security Council who were willing to be complicit in these activities. It also depended on UN officials and contractors who were dishonest, inattentive, or willing to make damaging compromises in pursuit of a compassionate mission.

The diminishment of UN credibility from corruption in the Oil-for- Food Program and other scandals is harmful to U.S. foreign policy and to efforts aimed at coordinating a stronger global response to terrorism. The capabilities possessed by the United Nations depend heavily on maintaining the credibility associated with countries acting together in a well-established forum with well-established rules. Profiteering, mismanagement, and bureaucratic stonewalling squander this precious resource. At a time when the United States is appealing for greater international help in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in trouble spots around the world, a diminishment of UN credibility reduces U.S. options and increases our own burdens.

The UN's ability to organize burden sharing and take over missions best handled by the international community is critical to the long- term success of U.S. foreign policy. As such, the United States must help achieve effective reform at the UN.

Our legislation contains a comprehensive list of reforms that the United States must pursue at the United Nations. Some were espoused in the Gingrich-Mitchell UN reform study. Others have been proposed by our colleague on the House side, Henry Hyde, and have already been adopted by the House of Representatives. Others have emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's and the Permanent Subcommittee of Investigation's examination of sound management, personnel and oversight practices that can prevent past failures from reoccurring.

The legislation includes a new UN procurement system that embodies the high standards required in modern governments and private sector companies, including relevant standards contained in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It calls for a new Management Performance Board to hold senior UN officials accountable and a Sanctions Management Office to assist the Security Council in managing, monitoring, and overseeing UN sanctions programs. It calls for strengthened financial disclosure requirements for UN personnel and the creation of an Office of Ethics to monitor the disclosure policy and enforce a code of ethics. On the UN budget, it supports sunset provisions for all new programs mandated by the General Assembly and cost-cutting measures such as greater use of the internet for public information, expanding outsourcing of translation, and reducing the frequency of conferences and international meetings. It

promotes whistle-blower protections for UN employees and strengthens the UN inspector general function carried out by the Office of International Oversight Services (OIOS). And it calls for the creation of a new Independent Oversight Board to ensure the integrity and fiscal independence of the OIOS.

The legislation also calls for reforms in the two functions, peacekeeping and humans rights protection, where the United Nations will need to be stronger and more effective over the next several decades if it is to make a major contribution to international peace and security.

This legislation would provide President Bush with Congressional support and flexibility as he moves to generate reforms at the UN. The bill establishes a comprehensive agenda for creating the kind of United Nations the American people can support. It does not impose an artificial formula or rigid checklist of items that narrows our definition of success. Nor does it require mandated cuts in UN dues. Instead, the underlying premise of this legislation is that we want to give a President who knows how to achieve reform and is firmly committed to doing so the tools he needs to achieve our national objectives.

We see President Bush's pledge to seek reform reinforced by his deeds, including his nomination of a reform-minded expert on UN affairs to be our ambassador at the United Nations and now his subsequent nomination of a trusted White House aide to be the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the State Department.

The drive for reform at the UN is not going to occur in a national security vacuum. We will continue to have national security interests that are affected by UN agencies and UN deliberations. Without narrowing the President's options, this legislation gives him the leverage he needs. If he believes that, despite our best efforts, the other member states of the UN do not share our views on the urgency for reform, this bill grants the President full authority to withhold 50 percent of our UN dues until reforms are implemented. But it allows the President to make tactical judgments in the national security interest about how to apply leverage and about what methods to use in pursuing reform.

Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial reform plan that will provide a platform for further reform initiatives and discussions. Other member nations have ideas for reform as well. The United States must be a leader in the effort to improve the United Nations, particularly its accountability. And this legislation provides the right balance, outlining the kinds of reforms that will make the United Nations an accountable, transparent, and well-managed international organization, while giving the President the authority to withhold contributions if reform efforts fall short.

I thank Senator Coleman for the expertise and leadership he has provided in crafting this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. President, later this year the Senate may again consider reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Opportunity and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act. This law ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and created our current Federal welfare program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

I supported the legislation that created TANF because I believed that the welfare system was failing recipients and their families and that we needed to do better. Now, almost nine years later, poverty levels are again on the rise and it is clear that improvements need to be made to the TANF program in order to achieve the goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and moving recipients into well-paying, sustainable jobs.

As we all know, each State's welfare program is different, and the implementation of these programs often varies from provider to provider and from county to county. While we encouraged State-level innovation with the 1996 law and should continue to encourage it with our reauthorization legislation, we should also ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients.

I am deeply concerned that a client who applies for or receives benefits in one part of Wisconsin may not be getting the same treatment as another applicant or client in a different part of my State.

The bill that I introduce today, the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act, would improve Federal fair treatment and due process protections for applicants to and clients of State TANF programs by addressing gaps in current law in three areas: access to translation services and English as a Second Language education programs, sanction notification and due process protections, and data collection and analysis. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.

In order for low-income parents whose primary language is not English to understand their rights with respect to availability of benefits, to comply with Federal and State TANF program rules, and to move from welfare to work, we should ensure that translation services and English as a Second Language classes are available.

My bill would require States to provide interpretation and translation services to low-income parents who do not speak English, and provides that the standards currently used in the food stamp program would be used to determine when the requirement to provide such services would be triggered for TANF-funded programs.

States would also be required to advise adults who lack English proficiency of available programs in the community to help them learn English, and to allow individuals who elect to enroll in such programs to participate in them. Individuals who participate in such activities on a satisfactory basis would be considered to be engaged in work activities and these activities would be counted towards the work participation rates.

If we are not only to reduce the welfare rolls but to reduce poverty and to ensure that low-income parents find sustainable jobs, we must ensure that these parents have access to education and training, including ESL classes, and that this training counts toward the work requirement. I support efforts to expand the number of activities that TANF clients are permitted to count as work, and my bill would add ESL classes to that list.

In addition, I am concerned about reports of unfair sanctioning and case closures across the country. We should make every effort to minimize discrimination in the application of sanctions and the termination of benefits. My bill would require that, prior to imposing a sanction, States inform individuals of the reasons for the sanction and what individuals may do to come into compliance with program rules to avoid the sanction. It also would stipulate that sanctions may not continue after individuals have come into compliance with program rules, and that individuals be informed of all other services and benefits for which they may be eligible during the period of the sanction, and of their rights under applicable State and Federal laws.

Finally, this bill would require States to perform enhanced data collection and analysis so that we can get a better picture of the people who apply for and receive TANF benefits and those who leave the welfare rolls.

I share the concern that has been expressed by a number of my constituents regarding the lack of comprehensive, uniform data about State welfare programs, including information on those who apply for benefits and those who have left the welfare rolls. My bill would require States to collect and manage data in a uniform way; to disaggregate the data based on a larger number of subgroups, including race, ethnicity/national origin, gender, primary language, and educational level of recipient; to include information on

work participation and about applicants who are diverted to other programs; and to track clients whose cases are closed.

In addition, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services would be required to include a comprehensive analysis broken down by these same data groups in its annual report on the TANF program. The Department would also be required to perform a longitudinal study of program outcomes that includes data on applicants for assistance, families that receive assistance, and families that leave assistance during the period of the study. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be required to protect the privacy of individuals and families applying for or receiving assistance under State TANF programs when data on such individuals and families is publicly disclosed by the Secretary.

These enhanced requirements are not meant to impose an additional burden on the States. Rather, they are intended to measure the success of the program in a more comprehensive and transparent manner.

This legislation is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Nation's oldest and most diverse civil rights coalition. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help ensure the safety of the Nation's oldest nuclear power plants before they receive a renewed license to operate.

The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey, NJ, has operated for 35 years and is the oldest nuclear facility in the country. It provides approximately ten percent of New Jersey's electricity, powering 600,000 homes. Oyster Creek also provides high paying jobs for 450 New Jerseyans. While the plant is an important source of energy and jobs for New Jerseyans, serious environmental, health, and safety concerns must be taken into account before the plant is relicensed. Three and a half million Americans live within a fifty- mile radius of this plant. Congress must recognize that it is imperative that the safety, performance and reliability of this plant be assessed by an independent entity before it is relicensed.

I have been very clear about my support for an independent review of Oyster Creek's safety and security as part of the relicensure process. Such an assessment would have to go beyond what is currently studied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when it reviews a license renewal. Unfortunately, when the NRC decides whether to renew a plant's license, it does not subject that application to the same thorough analysis that would be applied to a new power plant's application.

In particular, a plant's emergency plan is not evaluated by the NRC when it considers a license renewal. This is surely unacceptable.

The legislation I am introducing would require the NRC to withhold relicensing of the Oyster Creek Station until the National Academy of Sciences provides an independent assessment of safety performance, along with recommendations for relicensing and relicensing conditions. The assessment must identify health risks, vulnerability to terrorist attacks, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store nuclear waste, safety and security records, and the impact of a nuclear accident. The NRC would not be allowed to grant the license until it gives appropriate consideration to the recommendations in the report. This is important not just for New Jersey as it applies to Oyster Creek, but for all nuclear plants across the country.

In addition, the bill requires NAS to review and recommend what the life expectancy of nuclear plants should be that are designed like Oyster Creek.

Most public officials do not have the training or knowledge base needed to make an independent assessment regarding the safety and security of a nuclear power plant. This is why it is so critical that policymakers solicit the independent and unbiased opinion of experts who are able to thoroughly assess whether the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant would be able to operate without fail throughout the duration of a new license.

This Nation needs a plan for a sound energy future. Such a plan must address the increasing role for clean, renewable energy. The plan, however, must ensure that nuclear power plants such as Oyster Creek operate safely and only as long as they are needed.

If New Jersey's energy future is left up to chance, it could leave my State more reliant on coal-fired energy imported from other States over a regional grid that is unable to handle bulk power transfers of such a magnitude. The obvious end result of such reliance on distantly generated and transported energy is more air pollution and more blackouts.

Considering that New Jersey already suffers from the health effects of out-of-State air pollution and is still smarting from the 2003 blackout, we should know better than to let this happen.

A mistake in this matter has devastating potential consequences for New Jersey. An independent assessment of the safety of Oyster Creek is a significant step to ensure the safety of the 3.5 million residents who live in the vicinity of the plant. This additional layer of safety will help ensure that if Oyster Creek is relicensed, it will have passed a stringent, independent assessment of its safety. New Jersey should not expect anything less when it comes to the safety of its citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support this crucial piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.