Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fatal Grade Crossing Accident Investigations Act. The bill would require the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, to investigate the facts, circumstances and causes of all accidents at railroad grade crossings in which there is a fatality or substantial property damage. With this bill, we can correct an important gap in our efforts to reduce such accidents. Under current law, NTSB investigations of grade crossing accidents are undertaken only in select cases, as highway accident investigations. The bill would consider grade crossing accidents instead to be railroad accidents, which under current law already must be investigated if there is a fatality or substantial property damage. We need better information on fatal grade crossing accidents so we can do more to prevent unnecessary loss of life. According to National Railroad Administration Safety Statistics, more than 4,000 accidents per year occur at grade crossings. In 2000, 425 of these resulted in fatalities. Most fatalities occur at what are called passive grade crossings, those offering no warning or signal to a motorist of an oncoming train. Of Minnesota's more than 8,000 railroad grade crossings, three-fourths are passive crossings. The safety of such passive crossings is substantially dependent on such factors as physical layout and the adequacy of the view for drivers of approaching trains. To make good safety choices, communities, transportation agencies and departments at the local, state and federal levels need better information. That is one reason site-specific accident information is so necessary. NTSB investigations are essential not only to prevent future accidents, through recommendations on operating rules such as speed limits, warning or separation devices, improved signaling, signage, improvements for driver visibility and increased enforcement of stop signs at passive crossings. But their investigations often are also the only means of addressing the role of railroads and their personnel in accidents. This important issue has been brought to my attention by two passionate rail safety advocates in Minnesota, Lillian and Gerry Nybo. I have worked closely with the Nybos, who have been at the forefront of a national movement, ``Citizens Against Railroad Tragedies.'' Their 18- year-old son, Gerry, Jr., was killed three years ago this week at an unguarded rail grade crossing in Audubon Township in Becker County, Minnesota. He has just graduated from high school, and his life was full of promise. He friend Ryan Nelson was killed in the same accident. This legislation is needed to give families such as the Nybos, who have lost family members, the results of investigation into the facts and causes of these accidents. It is in memory of Gerry Nybo, Jr. that I introduce this legislation today. My hope in introducing this bill is to give communities the information they need to improve safety at dangerous intersections. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I hope we will not have to do that. The only thing I would like to say about this supplemental and where we are is I will refer to an article that the Presiding Officer, Senator Miller, wrote in the New York Times. There is a lot of work to do here. I think people are becoming increasingly impatient because we are supposed to be here to advocate people, and help and work for people. I think the supplemental bill is a really good bill. I was here the other day talking about one of the most important features that Senator Reid was talking about--homeland defense and bumping up veteran health care to the tune of about $240-plus million. There are gaping holes in this VA health care. It is serious. It is very serious. We have very long waiting lines right now for primary care and for specialty care. We have a moratorium on any additional community clinics. Everybody says they are for the veterans. Frankly, if you get beyond the Fourth of July and Memorial Day and Veterans Day, the way to speak for veterans is to live up to our commitment to make sure they get good health care coverage which they and their families deserve and expect. That is just one feature in this bill. It is important. What bothers me the most is this strategy of delay. It is 10 to 6. We are not going to have any more votes. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pretty much blocked everything for now. We should be having debate and votes, and we should be moving forward. We should pass this bill. People can vote up or down. We have a lot of other priorities. Again, the Presiding Officer has talked about prescription drugs. In Minnesota, about as important an issue as I can think of is affordable prescription drugs. Frankly, I also like the proposal, and I am part of this work of reimportation from Canada because there, by strict FDA safety guidelines, you are helping seniors and other working families who cannot afford the price. But let's get on with the work. Let's have the debate relevant to people's lives, vote up or down, be held accountable--representative democracy at its very best, not at its worst. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just delaying and delaying, slowing the Senate. The Senate machinery is geared to grind slowly, but what is going on is just an effort to make the Senate a nondecisionmaking body. I do not think we do well for people when we are not a decisionmaking body. There are those--I am a big advocate--who want to raise the minimum wage. I understand we are going to be dealing with hate crimes legislation, which I think we should. For my own part, I would put right up there with affordable prescription drugs wanting to get back to funding education because my State of Minnesota believes they have been cheated out of $2 billion they should have had for the next 10 years. We did it in the Senate; it got blocked in conference committee. The House Republican leaders and the White House opposed it. That would have been a glidepath, full funding for the special education program over the next 5 years, then maintaining that for the next 5 years past that. It would have been $2 billion more for Minnesota. Since a lot of our school districts have had to take money from other programs to fund special education because they have not gotten Federal money, 50 percent of it would have been fungible for special education, afterschool, more teaching assistants to help kids who are not doing as well in reading or math, being better able to recruit teachers, being better able to keep teachers, there is important work to do here. We are not the main player in K-12, but this is a place where we could really make a commitment, and should. I am anxious to get on with the appropriations process. I am anxious to get funding for education. I am anxious to talk about education and kids. Frankly, I am anxious to talk about education, prekindergarten all the way through age 65, because I think that is the way we should define education. A lot of our students in Minnesota are 55 and going back to school. They have lost their jobs. They worked for the taconite industry on the range. LTV shut down, and they are going back to school so they can get different sets of skills for different employment opportunities to support their families. So I would put it to you this way: As I see it, the early years, starting with the little ones, who are all under 4 feet tall and beautiful--we should be nice to them. That is prekindergarten and the early elementary school years. We want to make sure every kid in our country has an equal opportunity. Education is so important. Then, when people get older, out of school, it is the jobs, decent wages, health care coverage. Then, when people get older than that, it is Medicare, it is Social Security, it is not losing your pension. There is the whole issue of pension reform so we do not see more people cheated and some of them financially destroyed with more Enron kinds of situations. All of this is before us: pension reform legislation, getting it right for health care, reimbursement, Medicare. A lot of our hospitals in rural Minnesota are being killed right now from inadequate Medicare reimbursement. Hospital people have been here talking about what is going to happen to our ability to deliver care. Children's Hospital here--what is going to happen with cuts in medical education? Other people are talking about more funding, expanding health care coverage, prescription drugs, education, raising the minimum wage, going after hate crimes, ending the discrimination. I will finish this way. Tomorrow, we are going to have close to 2,000 people here from around the country; families who have struggled with mental illness. By the way, I do not know that there is a person in the Senate who does not know someone in their own family or a friend who has to struggle with this illness, saying: Treat it like any other illness. End the discrimination in this coverage. Don't tell us that if our daughter is struggling with depression, and we are scared to death she might take her life, that the health insurance plan will cover a couple of days in the hospital and that is it; a couple visits to the doctor and that is it. Treat this illness as any other illness. End the discrimination. We want to bring this bill to the floor of the Senate. It is bipartisan. Senator Domenici has been the leader. I have been fortunate enough to join him. We have 66 Senators. We have the majority of the House on board. There is a lot of important legislation we can pass that will lead to the improvement of the lives of people we represent. I come to the floor tonight just to express some indignation at this delay, delay, delay strategy, slowing the Senate up, making it a nondecisionmaking body, because I think we are not at our best when we operate that way. I just as soon have at it, have the debate, have the amendments, bring the legislation up for votes; vote yes, vote no. If you want to filibuster, filibuster; have the votes or don't have the votes. But what colleagues are doing now, at 6 o'clock at night--all gone, and will not let us vote on anything else--is making the Senate a nondecisionmaking body. Frankly, there is a whole lot we could do to help people. The reason we are here is to help people. We might have different definitions of what it means to help people, so then let's have a debate about that. But, for God's sake, let's deal with the relevant legislation that affects people's lives. And let's do it now. Let's not just continue to grind away and slow everything down and block everything and make it impossible for us to move forward.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada. First of all, I assume tomorrow there will be time to talk about the supplemental bill. I will not use a lot of time, but we want to finish this work. I am anxious to make a statement on Colombia. Tonight, I would like to talk about this delay. Am I correct there will probably be time to talk about this bill tomorrow?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, see, I would say to my colleague--and he might disagree about this--there are two different issues here. Listen, if you think a piece of legislation is egregious, and you know the rules, have at it, slow it up. Fine. I have done that. I do not want to be inconsistent. But when you have a statement like this, which says: We will not be reluctant to slow up legislation that is important to Democrats, then you are playing a different kind of game. Then it is straight partisanship. It has nothing to do with whether you feel strongly about it. It has more to do with a strategy of basically being able to say: Aha, a majority in a Democrat-run Senate can't get the job done because we will make sure they can't get the job done. That is not acceptable. Do you know what that is? That is inside party strategy, total reelection stuff, which then means we do not pass affordable prescription drug legislation, we do not get it right for education, we do not get it right on a whole bunch of other issues that are important to people.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just say this to my colleague from Nevada. There are two sets of issues people have, and both of them deal with security. There is an uneasiness about economic security, about the future, about jobs, pensions, good education for kids, health care. It is all there. The other thing is that people--and with considerable justification-- are really worried about physical security. Look what we have been through. People want to make sure that we are going to be able to do everything possible to best defend ourselves, everything possible to head off any kind of attack, everything possible to protect them, to protect their children. So all of the money for Minnesota and all the other States in the country, for homeland defense, I do not think the people view as a waste. I do not know what the problem is in moving this matter forward. I think people in Minnesota and the people in the country--if they know; and we will make sure they know--disapprove, and for good reason. I came to the floor to call on my colleagues to get going. Let's do the work. Let's get involved in the work of democracy. Let's not just do delay, delay, delay, all for the sake of some party strategy. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fatal Grade Crossing Accident Investigations Act. The bill would require the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, to investigate the facts, circumstances and causes of all accidents at railroad grade crossings in which there is a fatality or substantial property damage. With this bill, we can correct an important gap in our efforts to reduce such accidents. Under current law, NTSB investigations of grade crossing accidents are undertaken only in select cases, as highway accident investigations. The bill would consider grade crossing accidents instead to be railroad accidents, which under current law already must be investigated if there is a fatality or substantial property damage. We need better information on fatal grade crossing accidents so we can do more to prevent unnecessary loss of life. According to National Railroad Administration Safety Statistics, more than 4,000 accidents per year occur at grade crossings. In 2000, 425 of these resulted in fatalities. Most fatalities occur at what are called passive grade crossings, those offering no warning or signal to a motorist of an oncoming train. Of Minnesota's more than 8,000 railroad grade crossings, three-fourths are passive crossings. The safety of such passive crossings is substantially dependent on such factors as physical layout and the adequacy of the view for drivers of approaching trains. To make good safety choices, communities, transportation agencies and departments at the local, state and federal levels need better information. That is one reason site-specific accident information is so necessary. NTSB investigations are essential not only to prevent future accidents, through recommendations on operating rules such as speed limits, warning or separation devices, improved signaling, signage, improvements for driver visibility and increased enforcement of stop signs at passive crossings. But their investigations often are also the only means of addressing the role of railroads and their personnel in accidents. This important issue has been brought to my attention by two passionate rail safety advocates in Minnesota, Lillian and Gerry Nybo. I have worked closely with the Nybos, who have been at the forefront of a national movement, ``Citizens Against Railroad Tragedies.'' Their 18- year-old son, Gerry, Jr., was killed three years ago this week at an unguarded rail grade crossing in Audubon Township in Becker County, Minnesota. He has just graduated from high school, and his life was full of promise. He friend Ryan Nelson was killed in the same accident. This legislation is needed to give families such as the Nybos, who have lost family members, the results of investigation into the facts and causes of these accidents. It is in memory of Gerry Nybo, Jr. that I introduce this legislation today. My hope in introducing this bill is to give communities the information they need to improve safety at dangerous intersections. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the $417 million in additional fiscal year 2002 funding for veterans health care contained in this supplemental appropriation bill. First, let me give a little background. In November of last year, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi identified a roughly $400 million shortfall in the VA medical care appropriation for FY2002. This shortfall, driven by increased demand for VA services as well as rising medical costs, threatened to force the Secretary to stop enrolling new veterans into the VA system. This was not something the Secretary wanted to do, but he is someone who tries to face challenges honestly and he determined that he couldn't maintain services for veterans already enrolled in the VA and serve new veterans at the same time. But rather than have that happen, the White House told the Secretary that they would find him additional money. But Mr. President, when the administration sent their supplemental request to Congress in March they only asked for $142 million for the VA--$258 million below the level the Secretary said he needed. To add insult to injury, the VA was then told that it had to make up the difference through ``management efficiencies.'' Well, Mr. President, I think we all know that ``management efficiencies'' is just inside the beltway talk for balancing the budget on the backs of veterans. I was at any number of joint veterans committee hearings over on the House side where the veterans were talking about the importance of leaving no veteran behind. And remember, this occurs in the context of half a decade in the mid- nineties of cost cutting and belt tightening at the VA. There really isn't much more fat to trim. I knew that the administration's request was a non-starter. I knew based on what I was hearing from veterans in Minnesota and the VA both here and in Minnesota. I know that you, the Presiding officer, was hearing that in South Dakota as well. Already this year's shortfall has had a tremendous impact in Minnesota and throughout VISN 23: Higher waiting times generally for care at both hospitals and community based outpatient clinics--28 days for current patients seeking primary care, 30-150 days for new patients seeking primary care, 4 to 170 days for specialty care at the medical centers. A freeze on new CBOCs. A freeze on new patients at some of our medical centers. The closing of clinics at our hospitals--specifically, for example, the night clinics at the Minneapolis facility--the flagship hospital in our network. And at St. Cloud, the caregivers there tell me they have never seen it so bad, in terms of the cuts they are having to make in personnel and the way it is affecting quality of services. But these problems are not unique to Minnesota, they are happening all over the country. That's why these additional funds are so critical. Something had to be done. I, Senator Johnson, now the Presiding Officer, and Senator Collins drafted a bipartisan letter to the Appropriations Committee asking that the committee include at least $400 million for VA health care in the supplemental. Altogether, 27 Senators signed our letter--Republicans and Democrats. The veterans organizations that put together the Independent Budget endorsed our effort. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of each of those letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the committee agreed to our request. In particular I want to thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens as well as Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, the chair and ranking member of the VA/HUD subcommittee. They all care deeply about our veterans and they know better than anyone the challenges that the VA faces. The $417 million for veterans health care in this bill will mean that Minnesota's Network, VISN 23, will get an additional $21.4 million to reduce waiting times, keep clinics open, open new clinics, and improve the quality of healthcare. This is very badly needed. Mr. President, this bill has drawn criticism for going beyond the President's request. Well, at least on veterans health care the President didn't ask for enough. The VA is straining to serve more veterans while spending much less per patient. The VA is our back-up health care provider for the U.S. military. It is the back up provider for our public health care system should there be--heaven forbid-- another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This is money that will be well spent. I am proud to support it. I say to the Chair, Senator Johnson from South Dakota, it has been an honor to be involved with you in this joint effort. The Senate Appropriations Committee got it right. We need to get this bill to the President as quickly as possible. I have seen the same pattern again and again. I will just tell you that there are incredibly powerful and important claims by veterans who believe they are being left behind because they are not able to access the kind of health care we promised we would deliver to them, because of the budget constraints. This supplemental will help, though it is not a whole answer to the problem. I have heard it and seen it with the education community. My State of Minnesota is still waiting for the $2 billion our State deserves--if the Federal Government had lived up to its commitment on special education over 10 years. I think it would have been an additional $40 million this past year. It would have made all the difference in the world. Half of it would have been for special education, but the other half could have been applied to other programs that we had to take money from in order to fund special education. I have had people come into my office to talk about the need for more research money for cancer, all kinds of cancer. This morning we were talking about pancreatic cancer. Of course, we have talked about breast cancer and all kinds of cancer. I have had people, more recently, come in and talk to me about the need for more money for MS, muscular dystrophy, muscular dystrophy that affects children, Parkinson's disease, diabetes. Frankly, the list goes on and on. The last thing we want is for one group of people struggling with an illness to be pitted against another group. The concern is, will there be enough money to dramatically continue with the research effort within NIH? By the way, I would argue that ultimately a healthy Medicare recipient makes for a better Medicare system. And to the extent we can find a cure for some of these disabling diseases--including Alzheimer's--we will all be much better. There is the old adage: But for the grace of God go I or my parent or my grandparent. I have heard from people in Minnesota--elderly people, but not just senior citizens, others as well--about what we talk about all the time--and the majority leader said, indeed, we will bring this to the floor of the Senate--affordable prescription drug legislation. But just as important as that is, our health care delivery system in Minnesota is in crisis. The Medicare reimbursement, which was dramatically cut in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, has just been devastating to our rural hospital system and, frankly, to metro as well--whether it be our hospitals, our nursing homes, our home health care providers, whether it be the whole issue of physician reimbursement vis-a-vis Medicare recipients, whether it be the County Medical Center, which is one of the best public hospitals in the United States. In Medicare and Medicaid, we are faced with some severe problems of underfunding. To go back to the issue of veterans' health care, when I visit veterans in our medical centers, and then maybe spend some time talking to their spouses, their spouses do not have a clue about what they are going to do when their husbands get home. Maybe one of the veterans has had hip surgery, and he is 75 or 80 years old. We don't know what to do about home health care, how we can support people so they can stay at home. But that does not affect just veterans; it affects all of us as we get older or, God forbid, it affects others who struggle with disabilities at a much younger age. I have been hearing from small businesses more in recent years. Although I have always believed our failure to finance, organize, and deliver health care in our country in a way that makes sense most seriously affects, obviously, people with no insurance and people who are underinsured, my gosh, the self-employed and small businesspeople are getting killed by these spiraling health care costs. This is a system that is imploding. Frankly, I think we ultimately have to get back to health security for all. I think we have to get back to comprehensive health care coverage. I remind my colleagues about some of the reports in the New York Times about nursing home conditions. These are elderly people who have built a country, who are infirm, who wind up in nursing homes with inadequate staffing and some pretty horrendous conditions. And it is not because the people in the nursing homes are cruel; it is that they do not have adequate funding. I could not believe the New York Times front page story, a three-part series. I think the journalist should receive a Pulitzer for his work on adult care for people struggling with mental illness, people who jump out of windows and take their lives because they never received pharmacological treatment, people who have died in heat, people who wear the same urine-soaked and urine-smelling clothing day after day because they have received no care. This is in the United States of America in the year 2002. Surely we can do better. By the way, this Thursday there will be maybe as many as 2,000 men and women, who will have come to Washington, DC, from all across the country, who are basically going to say: When are you going to pass a mental health parity bill? When are you going to end the discrimination? We are here to meet with you, Representatives. They are going to focus most of their effort on the House side. We passed this as an amendment last year in the appropriations bill. We have 66 cosponsors. Senator Domenici has done a great job taking the lead. It has been an honor to be his partner in this effort. But these are people who are just getting tired of waiting, tired of the delay. It is their loved ones or themselves who are affected. My only point is, I really do think we are on a collision course between tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts--too much of this, of course, focused on the wealthiest citizens or multinational corporations--and not having, therefore, any of the revenue or the funding to make any investment in these other areas. I do not think, when it comes to education and health care, when it comes to the question of conditions in nursing homes, and when it comes to the question of whether we are going to do everything we can to do the research and find the cure for horrible diseases, that we should basically be put in a position of not making the investment. How can we do that? We will not be a better nation if that is the case. So I really believe these tax cuts have put us in a straitjacket. When I look at what is being asked for the Pentagon, and then look at what is being asked--and probably there should be more--for homeland defense, and then I look at these other compelling needs, and then I look at all the tax cuts, I ask myself the question: How can you do all of it at the same time? And you can't. So I hope we will sort that out and make some of these decisions. That is part of what this battle has been about--veterans' health care. Everybody is for veterans. No Senator would ever make a speech saying they were not for veterans. But veterans are saying: Look, when push comes to shove, there is the Fourth of July, there is Memorial Day, and there is Veterans Day. We appreciate the parades and we appreciate the ceremonies, but the truth is, the best way you can honor us is by, please, living up to your commitment to give us the very best health care, by honoring us when we are in the later years of our lives, if we are World War II veterans, by making sure we are not tucked away in some nursing home; if we are Vietnam veterans and we are homeless, and we are struggling with PTSD, try to give us care; if we are Persian Gulf veterans trying to figure out what happened to us, make sure we get the health care. I think this supplemental bill is, at least in part, a recognition of that. I appreciate the work of all involved, and I especially appreciate the work of the Presiding Officer, Senator Johnson. The Presiding Officer has been a real leader in this area. I know veterans in South Dakota thank Senator Johnson as well. And I thank Senator Collins for her good work also. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, May 8, 2002. Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, The Capital, Washington, DC. Hon. Ted Stevens, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations, The Capital, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens: We write to urge you to include $400 million for veterans medical care in the FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill. This is the minimum amount necessary to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to maintain current services in the current fiscal year without impairing veterans' access to quality, timely health care. The VA in recent years has stretched their appropriation as far as possible, even as the number of veterans seeking VA care has risen dramatically. In November of last year, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi identified a $400 million shortfall in the VA medical care appropriation for FY2002. This shortfall, driven by increased demand for VA services as well as rising medical costs, threatened to force the Secretary to restrict enrollment of new veterans into the VA system. The Administration has requested a $142 million supplemental appropriation for the VA--$258 million below the level the Secretary said he needed. While we appreciate that the President included veterans medical care in his supplemental request, we are concerned that it will not cover the entire shortfall. VA has said the Veterans Health Administration will make up the difference through ``management efficiencies.'' However, such steps will severely undermine the VA's ability to delivery quality, timely health care to America's veterans. The impact of this budget gap has already affected many veterans in the form of longer waiting times for medical appointments, stressed and overworked VA staff, closing of clinics, moratoriums on new Community Based Outpatient Clinics and frozen enrollment at existing CBOCs. We know that the fiscal strains on the federal budget are significant. However, the crisis in the veterans health care system requires that it be made a top priority. To avert further hardship on veterans, the supplemental should reflect VA's actual need and include $400 million for medical care. Thank you for your attention this request, We know of your commitment to our veterans and look forward to working with you as the appropriation process moves forward. Sincerely, Paul D. Wellstone; Susan Collins; James M. Jeffords; Byran L. Dorgan; Harry Reid; Max Baucus; Barbara Boxer; Dick Durbin; Robert G. Torricelli; John F. Kerry; Mark Dayton; Patty Murray; Patrick Leahy; Tim Johnson; Jay Rockefeller; Debbie Stabenow; Kent Conrad; Bill Nelson; Tom Daschle; Max Cleland; Zell Miller; Gordon Smith; Ted Kennedy; Olympia Snowe; Tom Harkin; Jean Carnahan.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I want a vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am a first-generation American. My father fled persecution from Russia, and I am always most proud of our country when we promote human rights. This is an amendment that simply says surely one of our objectives should be to promote human rights and democracy, and we call on our trading partners to strive to meet these human rights standards. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 governments in the world today that systematically practice torture. At the very minimum, we can at least say one of our objectives in trade policy will be to promote human rights and democracy. That is all this amendment does. I think it means our country leads with our own values. I think it is important we make that statement, and I hope there will be a strong vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask to vitiate the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act. This act represents a critically important turning point in the readiness of our public health system to respond to the challenge of bioterrorism. In many places in our Nation the public health infrastructure has been underfunded and understaffed. The anthrax attack has demonstrated that our system can be overwhelmed by a bioterrorist attack. This bill provides essential assistance to our network of local and state health departments, public health laboratories, hospitals and health care facilities so that they can protect all of us in the event of further bioterrorist attack, or of other infectious disease outbreaks. We in Minnesota have long been aware of the dangers of bioterrorism thanks to the efforts of Mike Osterholm, head of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. I am very glad that this bill is providing for the kind of bioterrorism preparedness our nation needs. This bill provides block grants to states to improve public health departments and to get the equipment they need, and to help local governments safeguard their communities from these threats. The bill also provides grants to hospitals and other health care facilities to improve their abilities to respond quickly and effectively to a bioterrorist attack. I am pleased that the authorization for our hospitals has been increased from $370 to $520 million. I am also glad this bill emphasizes getting funds to the local level. That is very important. In fact, I would have even gone further in setting aside funds specifically for localities. I am also glad that the antitrust exemption in the Senate bill has been dropped from the conference report. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I am particularly glad that this bill recognizes the threat of bioterrorism in the workplace. Virtually all of the anthrax attacks involved places where people work, including media offices, the U.S. Postal Service and here in the Congress. I am especially happy that this bill includes language which I had suggested to direct the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to expand research on the health and safety of workers who are at risk for biological threats or attacks in the work place. Finally, I am particularly pleased that my provisions regarding mental health were included in this important bill. We know from the outstanding hearings on mental health and terrorism, chaired by Senator Kennedy in the HELP Committee, that the preparedness and response activities for the mental health consequences of bioterrorism are as important as all other public health initiatives this Congress can support. Recent press reports citing research on the psychological consequences of exposure to terrorist attacks, as well as the necessity of dealing with ongoing threats, have demonstrated clearly that mental health is an integral part of our ability to respond appropriately to bioterrorism attacks. I am particularly pleased that Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act established mental health response preparedness as one of the primary goals in our national initiative The mental health provisions in the bill will support federal, state, and local efforts to enhance the preparedness of public health institutions to coordinate mental health services. The bill also establishes as one of the primary responsibilities of the federal Working Group on Bioterrorism and Other Public Health Emergencies to make recommendations regarding the preparedness of public health institutions and emergency service personnel to detect, diagnose, and respond appropriately with regard to mental health needs in the aftermath of a biological threat or attack. A special focus on children's mental health was established through a required National Advisory Committee on Children and Terrorism, whose responsibilities include making recommendations regarding the preparedness of the mental health care system to respond to bioterrorism as it relates to children. Similarly, a required Emergency Public Information and Communications Advisory Committee will include experts on behavioral psychology among its members and will make recommendations on appropriate ways to communicate public health information regarding bioterrorism. The bill also includes mental health training as one of the designated funding activities, specifically to enhance the training of health care professionals to recognize and treat the mental health consequences of bioterrorism or other public health emergencies. And finally, the bill authorizes funding for mental health counseling programs to be coordinated by the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop and maintain various strategies for providing mental health counseling and assistance to local and community emergency response providers, veterans, active duty personnel, and individuals seeking care at Department VA medical centers following a bioterrorist attack or other public health emergency. The VA program also includes funding for training and certification programs. We know one for thing for sure. It is a mistake to believe that bioterrorism events cannot have lasting impact on the mental health of the individuals who experience them. Let us not repeat the mistakes that were made in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, when the trauma experienced by veterans and their families was ignored or trivialized until well after the optimal time for treatment was past. We have learned from the outstanding research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding the severity of the trauma-related disorders and the effective ways in which it can be treated. We must ensure that all federal, state, and local public health efforts to respond to and prepare for bioterrorist attacks take advantage of this knowledge. I do not believe that mental health problems are a widespread or inevitable consequence of bioterrorist attacks. But as we heard from the experts at the HELP Committee hearing, we should not underestimate the severe impact that these events have on people's sense of identity and safety, and how the multiple losses and horrific experiences they go through has the potential to affect them for a long while. There have been many reports in the media of the heightened sense of anxiety and vulnerability throughout our country. These feelings are normal and I have confidence that most Americans will be able to deal with these crises. But I also firmly believe that the Federal, State, and local governments can play a major role in helping people to understand what has happened to them, and establish programs for mental health services for those who will need it. We in Congress are doing our part by the inclusion of these mental health initiatives within this bill. In closing, this bill represents an essential step forward in safeguarding both the physical and mental health of our nation in the event of further bioterrorist attack.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy, Gregg, Murray, and others in introducing the Early Care and Education Act. I am pleased to have worked on this legislation because I believe it is absolutely critical that we do more on the Federal level to enhance early childhood education throughout the country. Seventy four percent of children in out of home care had care that was classified as mediocre--meeting health and safety requirements but offering no education or developmental benefits. Twelve percent were in places that were considered unsafe and only 14 percent were considered good. this situation is totally unacceptable. The Early Care and Education Act would start to address this severe situation by providing much needed funds for states to support a more comprehensive, more high quality infrastructure for early care. It would fund professional development for early care providers and provide for wage incentive programs to ensure that providers get the salaries they deserve. It would provide incentives to States to integrate and coordinate services for your children. I am particularly pleased that this legislation would also provide funding for parent education programs such as the Early Childhood and Family Education program in Minnesota. The ECFE program has been extraordinarily successful in my state. It is the largest early childhood program in Minnesota and is now offered in districts that together encompass 99 percent of the population of infants and toddlers in the State. Forty four percent of all young children and their families participate in the program. Four different studies of outcomes of the ECFE program have all concluded that ECFE is effective with all types of families. Benefits for children include improved social interactions and relationships, improved social skills, increased self confidence and self-esteem, and improvement in language and communication skills. For parents, ECFE increases the ability to know what is important for children's healthy growth and development over time, improves their confidence and leads to far higher participation in parental involvement activities in elementary school. A recent study by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement at the United States Department of Education has described the Minnesota ECFE program as an example of the type of program that can provide children and families with ``continuity and [can] ease the critical transition to school.'' That is the goal of the important legislation we are introducing today. Forty percent of all American children enter kindergarten unprepared for school. This is unacceptable. We know that children need to be in a stimulating environment to spur the brain development that is critical to intelligence. This bill will move us in the direction of ensuring that every child has access to better quality care by helping States develop an improved and integrated system of care. The academic achievement gap is greatest when children start school, so if we are serious about closing the achievement gap between poor and more affluent students, we must do more to intervene early. This bill is a strong move in the right direction. I thank my colleagues for their excellent work on this important issue.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy, Gregg, Murray, and others in introducing the Early Care and Education Act. I am pleased to have worked on this legislation because I believe it is absolutely critical that we do more on the Federal level to enhance early childhood education throughout the country. Seventy four percent of children in out of home care had care that was classified as mediocre--meeting health and safety requirements but offering no education or developmental benefits. Twelve percent were in places that were considered unsafe and only 14 percent were considered good. this situation is totally unacceptable. The Early Care and Education Act would start to address this severe situation by providing much needed funds for states to support a more comprehensive, more high quality infrastructure for early care. It would fund professional development for early care providers and provide for wage incentive programs to ensure that providers get the salaries they deserve. It would provide incentives to States to integrate and coordinate services for your children. I am particularly pleased that this legislation would also provide funding for parent education programs such as the Early Childhood and Family Education program in Minnesota. The ECFE program has been extraordinarily successful in my state. It is the largest early childhood program in Minnesota and is now offered in districts that together encompass 99 percent of the population of infants and toddlers in the State. Forty four percent of all young children and their families participate in the program. Four different studies of outcomes of the ECFE program have all concluded that ECFE is effective with all types of families. Benefits for children include improved social interactions and relationships, improved social skills, increased self confidence and self-esteem, and improvement in language and communication skills. For parents, ECFE increases the ability to know what is important for children's healthy growth and development over time, improves their confidence and leads to far higher participation in parental involvement activities in elementary school. A recent study by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement at the United States Department of Education has described the Minnesota ECFE program as an example of the type of program that can provide children and families with ``continuity and [can] ease the critical transition to school.'' That is the goal of the important legislation we are introducing today. Forty percent of all American children enter kindergarten unprepared for school. This is unacceptable. We know that children need to be in a stimulating environment to spur the brain development that is critical to intelligence. This bill will move us in the direction of ensuring that every child has access to better quality care by helping States develop an improved and integrated system of care. The academic achievement gap is greatest when children start school, so if we are serious about closing the achievement gap between poor and more affluent students, we must do more to intervene early. This bill is a strong move in the right direction. I thank my colleagues for their excellent work on this important issue.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3467.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to try to make the most efficient use of time. When colleagues are ready to do some other work, I will certainly be pleased to yield the floor. There is no surprise here. I say to Senator Grassley, as I said to the Senator from Montana, I am going to speak for a few minutes. When we are ready to get back to business, I will be pleased to yield the floor. This is no 5-hour speech that I have planned right now. Mr. President, I want to one more time discuss the human rights and democracy amendment. For the life of me, I actually do not understand the basis of opposition. In the legislation before us, there is a listing of objectives. Believe me, one of the objectives is to do everything we can to protect property rights, to do everything we can to make sure patents are protected--you name it--intellectual property is protected. Fine. What this amendment says is one of the listed goals of trade policy ought to be the promotion of human rights and democracy. It should be one of our goals. We should list this as a goal of trade policy and then call upon our trading partners to strive to meet these standards. I want to say in not the hardest hitting way but in a little softer way at first that this is the greatness of our country. We should lead with our values. We should be promoting human rights in the world. I gave examples of any number of different countries right out of our own State Department report where governments systematically torture citizens, where people who dare to speak up and challenge a government are imprisoned, where people who dare to organize a union to make better wages and support their families wind up in prison. There are at least 70 governments in the world that systematically still use torture against their citizens. I am saying that I think it would make us a better Senate and would make each Senator a better Senator if we would say one of our goals-- that is all this says--should be the promotion of democracy and human rights and that we should at least call upon our trading partners to strive to meet internationally recognized civil, political, and human rights. I do not understand the opposition. I know we are now in a situation where cloture has been invoked--this is a germane amendment--where we have a limited amount of time. That is why I came to the Chamber now. Other Senators have amendments, and I do not want to crowd out their amendments, but I certainly would like the opposition at some time before a vote to explain the basis of a ``no'' vote. I believe as a first-generation American Senator from a human rights State, Minnesota, which has always been at the forefront in promoting human rights and has always been at the forefront in promoting democracy--and, by the way, many refugees who have fled persecution have come to Minnesota--I do not understand why the Senate would not go on record with a 100-to-0 vote that one of the goals of our trade policy should be the promotion of human rights and democracy and that we would call upon our trading partners to strive to meet those goals. Haven't we read about enough reports dealing with deplorable child labor conditions? How many more children need to die? How many more brave men and women need to be tortured? How many working people in these other countries need to wind up in prison? How many workers need to die at an early age because of the carcinogenic substances they work with because there is no protection, and if they dare to speak out, they wind up in prison? How many more men and women in our country are going to have to lose their jobs because we have no trade agreements that call upon governments to live up to these standards? This is a values vote, and it is a working family vote. It is a values vote because we should lead with our values, and we should at least vote to make this a goal of our trade policy. My colleagues know me. This is my pragmatic best. This is the most pragmatic language I can come up with: That we should list human rights and democracy as a goal and call upon our trading partners to strive to meet that goal. Now, to be more serious, we should lead with our values. This is what I love about our country: Promoting human rights. I am in awe of the men and women I have met in my life. I do not know how they do it. You live in some of these countries, and you dare to speak up when you know it is not just that you might be rounded up and tortured--here is what is worse, Mr. President, here is how these governments silence citizens: They threaten that they will round up your children or your wife, your husband, your loved ones, and they will be tortured or they will be raped or they will be murdered. I am saying today in this Chamber that we ought to at least vote to make a goal of our trade policy respect for human rights and democracy. My second point is a working family point. I am positive that the families I represent with this vote are not lobbying furiously because they are not usually the ones with that much clout. The vast majority of people in our country and the vast majority of people in Minnesota are absolutely for good trade policy, but I think people would like some reassurance that we would strive in our trade agreements with other countries to establish some goals where they do not get put out of work because they are competing with a 13-year-old who has to work 19 hours a day at 30 cents an hour. It is not good for that 13-year- old, and it is not good for workers in our country. I see colleagues in the Chamber. I will not belabor the point, but I will come back to this again. Frankly, I think opposition to this amendment, unfortunately, tells a larger story about what is profoundly wrong with this legislation. Legislation that does not establish that goal and is afraid to speak out on promoting the goal of human rights and democracy in the world is legislation that does not deserve support. I hope there will be support for this amendment. I yield the floor. Order for Recess

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is the amendment on human rights and democracy which is germane. I am trying to get the amendment offered.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3467.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. This amendment which I offer to the fast-track portion of the substitute is critical to ensuring fairness in this global trading regime. It will improve the majority of the lives of Americans and our trading partners. The amendment adds a principled negotiating objective regarding human rights and democracy. It says to our negotiators that they should obtain provisions in trade agreements under which the parties to the agreements strive to protect internationally recognized civil, political, and human rights. These are rights guaranteed under existing international covenants. This is not a debate about fast track, and again, I believe it is a profound mistake for us to give up our right to amend trade agreements because these trade agreements are going to have such a critical impact on the lives of the people we represent. This amendment says: The rules of international trade ought to reflect American values. Our country ought to be a leader when it comes to promoting the values of democracy, when it comes to promoting the values of respect for human rights. What we are saying is: U.S. trade negotiators, during your negotiations, we want you to obtain a provision in the trade agreement which makes it clear that the parties that they must make a commitment to strive to protect internationally recognized civil, political, and human rights. I say to Senators, in some ways I do not think this amendment should be controversial. There are some who say we have to be a part of this international economy. I agree. The international economy is a new reality. I agree. We should not put up walls on our border. I agree. Free trade--or I would argue fair trade--could work well for our consumers and make our businesses more competitive. As we lead in this new international economy, let's lead with our values. We ought to at least say to our trading partners: We call on you to respect human rights and democratic principles. It is an important proposition and, at a minimum, we should demand countries try to do better. That is what this amendment says. Here are some examples of the behavior of some of our trading partners. From the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights, 2001 for China: Police and other elements of the security apparatus employ torture and other degrading treatment in dealing with some detainees and prisoners. Former detainees and press reported that officials used electric shocks, prolonged periods of solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, beatings, shackles, and the list goes on. Is it too much to ask that our trade agreements have a provision that calls upon our partners to strive to meet the standards of recognized international covenants meant to protect the civil, political and human rights of the citizens of the world? Another example is Russia. Again, this is from our own State Department Country Reports, 2001. There were credible reports that some law enforcement officials used torture regularly to coerce confessions from suspects and that the Government does not hold most officials accountable. Torture that was recognized in the State Department report takes one of four forms: Beating with fists, batons, or other objects; asphyxiation using gas masks or bags sometimes filled with mace; electric shocks; or suspension by body parts. Again, all I am saying is, if you have governments that engage in the practice of torture, when we enter into trade agreements with those governments, shouldn't we have as a goal of the agreement that the government will strive to protect internationally recognized civil, political, and human rights? Can't we make it a negotiating objective to get that commitment? Another example is Colombia. From the Amnesty International Global Report of 2001: The human rights crisis continues to deepen. More than 4,000 people were victims of political killings, over 300 ``disappeared,'' and an estimated 300,000 people were internally displaced. The report notes that some of this was the work of the FARC, the radical left guerilla group, but it also reports that some of the mass killings were done by the paramilitary, often linked to the military. My point is simple. It is un-American to allow an agreement to come to this body that we cannot change, that we may not even get a decent amount of time to talk about, that allows us to trade unconditionally with nations that torture their citizens, that summarily execute people for exercising their basic right to question the government, that practice forced abortion, and that arbitrarily arrest, detain, and exile their citizens. I make the point again. It is un-American to allow an agreement to come to this body that we cannot change, that we may not even get a decent amount of time to talk about, that allows us to trade unconditionally with nations that torture their citizens. We should include in this fast-track bill a negotiating objective that calls upon our trading partners to strive to live up to international civil, political and human rights standards. We ought to do that. We ought to lead with our values. We ought to say this should be a part of any negotiating strategy. It is un-American to trade unconditionally with nations that deprive citizens of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil Rights and Political Rights, such as the right to worship and the right to a fair trial. If we are going to enter into agreements with countries that deny people the right of worship or the right to a fair trial or that torture their citizens, or that summarily execute people because they question these governments, at the very minimum, we should make it clear, the Senate should make it clear, that we want to have a provision in these trade agreements that at least calls upon these countries to strive to live up to these basic standards. I also argue it is un-American to trade unconditionally with nations that intimidate their citizens and are so corrupt that public participation is out of the question. It is important to lead with our values. We ought to be promoting human rights. What makes me most proud to be an American citizen, to be a first-generation American, to be a Senator from Minnesota, is the way our country stands for human rights and for democracy and for freedom. I am saying in mild, moderate language, that our trade negotiators should have a principle negotiating objective, like the ones already in this bill for intellectual property rights and agriculture, that calls upon our partners to strive to live up to international human rights standards. Why not have the U.S. Government be part of that? I am not saying don't trade with them. And my amendment doesn't say don't trade with them. I am saying trade in a way that lives up to American standards. Use trade agreement to get commitments out of trading partners to shape up--to respect the rights of their citizens. In the January/February 2000 edition of Foreign Affairs National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: ``There are no guarantees, but in scores of cases from Chile to Spain to Taiwan, the link between democracy and economic liberalization has proven powerful over the long run.'' In remarks made to the Society of American Business Editors and Writers last April, USTR Zoellick said: ``. . . we have to ensure that trade policies are aligned with our society's values. Free trade is about more than economic efficiency. It promotes freedom abroad.'' In an address to the Council of the America's earlier this month, he said: ``Democracy is more than just holding elections. It is the Liberal idea embodied by the phrase, `The rule of law, not of men.' It is a neutral, comprehensive framework of rules enforced impartially and justly.'' And Monday, when talking about Cuba, the President said: Political and economic freedoms go hand in hand . . . Without major steps by Cuba to open up its political system and its economic system, trade with Cuba will not help the Cuban people. It's important for Americans to understand, without political reform, without economic reform, trade with Cuba will merely enrich Fidel Castro and his cronies. With real political and economic reform, trade can benefit the Cuban people and allow them to share in the progress of our times. It seems the administration has the rhetoric linking political and economic progress--especially when it comes to embargoes. But where is the commitment? Where is the commitment to ensure this progress with our trading partners? It is with our trading partners that we can actually make a difference. How can we stand here and debate a bill that doesn't even demand that our trading partners try to do better when it comes to human rights and political freedom? Economic, political, and social progress have always gone hand-in-hand. If public participation in the political process, if transparency in government, if acknowledgment of the fundamental rights of man come second to trade--to economic property rights--it is exploitation. It is the text book definition of exploitation because someone owns those property rights--rights that affect everyone in society--but very few have had a say in their distribution. Today there are negotiators at the table at the WTO negotiating away rights over which the citizens of those respective nations have absolutely no say. If that is the case, why does this fast track bill make anti- corruption in the trading regime and transparency at the WTO, principal objectives for U.S. trade negotiators? Why do those advocating this bill think these things are important enough to demand them from countries in the trading arena, but not important enough to demand that these same nations allow such public participation in decisionmaking for their own citizens? Why? I will tell you why--it is because the current trading regime is all about protecting the rights of the investor regardless of the situation of the worker. When I look at some of the statements made by the administration, in the abstract, there are some I absolutely agree with. We have to promote human rights and democracy. We must insist on it in our foreign relations. But this must be more than rhetoric. We must have a commitment. Including a principle negotiating objective calling upon our trading partners to strive to live up to these standards is a way to show that commitment. I have been talking about values but I could talk about competitive disadvantages too. A lot of what is going on throughout the world puts our working people at a severe disadvantage. Whether I look at Mexico, Colombia, or many other countries around the world, the situation is the same. People, quite often, if they try to organize and bargain collectively to get a better wage and working conditions, wind up in prison. They end up being tortured. Who pays the price? The people in the other countries pay the price for it. Our workers pay the price for it. It is hard for working people in our country to compete against a corporation that can go to another country, exploit children, work them 18 hours a day, and not abide by fair labor standards or abide by human rights standards. They can not compete against it and they should not have to. In my opinion, this treatment: persistent violations of human rights, payment of slave wages, exploitation of people at the workplace by making them work under the most uncivilized working conditions, is a trade barrier. I don't think our corporations and our companies and American businesses or American workers should have to compete with this. Given the floor situation I will make my final two points. This amendment is about values and this amendment is about economics. We should lead with our values. If we are going to enter into trade agreements with other countries, can't we at least have a provision in the trade agreements that calls on them to live up to basic human rights standards? Should we be silent on these questions? Should we be doing business with countries all around the world without at least calling on them to live up to the international covenants respecting basic civil, political, and human rights? I think not. The United States of America should not be silent when it comes to human rights. We should not be silent when it comes to persecution against people trying to practice their religion. We should not be silent when it comes to people being rounded up and imprisoned for trying to organize a labor union and having decent working conditions and wages to support their families. Finally, without at least some language dealing with democracy and human rights, we put American companies and American workers at a severe economic disadvantage. We find it very difficult to compete with companies located in countries whose governments violate basic human rights standards, that allow children to be worked to death, that allows slave wages, that allow uncivilized working conditions, and that crack heads when people try to organize and join a union in order to get a better standard of living. This human rights and democracy amendment strengthens this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it. Since my colleagues were gracious enough to let me speak, I yield the floor and eagerly await their response. Amendment No. 3445 Withdrawn

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I do not want to interfere with other colleagues who might come out and offer amendments. If colleagues are not anxious to speak now, I would like to make another point or two. Senator Grassley indicates that is fine. I want to read from the International Confederation of Trade Unions Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights for 2001. In Mexico: Independent trade unionists faced difficulties in organizing during the year . . . there are frequent abuses in the country's 4000 or so maquiladoras; 1.3 million workers are paid less than six dollars a day to work in often deplorable conditions and only 40% of them stay more than 3 months in their job; unpaid overtime, sexual harrassment, discrimination in employment, non-existent health and safety precautions and unfair dismissals are just a few examples of the daily lot of maquiladora workers. In Colombia: In 2000, more trade unionists were killed in Colombia than in the whole world in 1999! One hundred and thirty-five trade unionists, both leaders and members, were assassinated during the year, bringing the total number of trade unionists killed since 1991 to several thousand. At least another 1,600 have received death threats over the last three years, including 180 in 2000. 37 were unfairly arrested and 155 had to flee their home region; another 24 were abducted, 17 disappeared, and 14 were the victims of physical attack. The 2002 International Labor Organization (ILO) Global Report on Child Labor has estimated that over 8 million children worldwide are trapped in the unconditional worst forms of child labor--which are internationally defined as slavery, trafficking, debt bondage, and other forms of forced labor, forced recruitment for use in armed conflict, prostitution, and pornography, and illicit activities. Madam President, 180 million children aged 5-17--or 73 percent of all child laborers--are now believed to be engaged in the worst forms of child labor, comprising hazardous work and the unconditional worst forms of child labor. This amounts to one child in every eight in the world. Of the 171 million children engaged in hazardous work, nearly \2/3\ are under 15 and should be immediately withdrawn from this work and rehabilitated. From an April 2002 Human Rights Report titled ``Tainted Harvest: Child Labor and Obstacles to Organizing on Ecuador's Banana Plantations'': In 1994, according to government estimates, approximately 38 percent of all children in Ecuador between the ages of 10 and 17 worked, or roughly 808,000 children approximately \1/ 2\ of these children were between the ages of 10 and 14; in the rural sector, roughly 59 percent of children between ages 10 and 17 worked, or approximately 568,000 children. In 1998, another government survey indicated that the percentage of children at work between the ages of 10 and 17 in Ecuador had risen to 45 percent. Child workers were exposed to toxic chemicals, handled insecticide-treated plastics, worked under fungicide-spraying airplanes in the fields, and directly applied post-harvest pesticides in packing plants. They described using sharp tools, including knives, short curved blades, and machetes, and lacking potable water and sanitation facilities. One child described his situation when he was 11: ``I went under the packing plant roof until the [fumigation] plane left--less than an hour. I became intoxicated. My eyes were red. I was nauseous. I was dizzy. I had a headache. I vomited.'' Of course nations must be held accountable. But where is corporate accountability? There are numerous reports that Coca Cola is not taking decisive public action to prevent the killing of union members at its plants in Colombia. You can be certain that if a Coca Cola plant in Colombia found a product defect there, it would call out the dogs. Coca Cola personnel would be on the first plane out of Atlanta and in Colombia doing immediate quality control, figuring out where the problem is and finding a solution. I am outraged there isn't the same response when it comes to credible reports of violence against union leaders and activists in its plants. Is a life worth less than a trademark? A recent investigative report into the closing of a Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation factory in Guatemala by the U.S./Labor Education in the Americas Project found that PVH closed the factory and busted the only union with a collective bargaining agreement in Guatemala in order to shift production to poverty-wage sweatshops that are in flagrant violation of Guatemalan labor law, as well as the White-House-initiated Apparel Industry Partnership code of conduct. I have many examples of absolutely deplorable working conditions, people who are exploited, people who die at work, many of whom are children. I will say it one more time: U.S. companies cannot compete with this. More importantly, they should not have to. We ought to at least call upon our trading partners to shape up when it comes to basic worker rights. We ought not be undermining our own economy. We ought not be undermining our own companies. We ought not be undermining Americans with this trade policy. I say to my colleague from Iowa, this is a perfect marriage of values and economics. There are a lot of governments in this world, at least 70, that systematically torture their citizens. If we know this is the case, and we are entering into trade agreements with these nations, shouldn't we at least have a provision in the trade agreement that calls upon them to strive to live up to internationally recognized human rights standards? How can anybody be against that proposition? When it comes to economics, I will say it one more time, one of the reasons there is so much suspicion about these trade agreements, which can be very good, is that often times they are not in the best interest of working people. Workers in Minnesota understand this and workers across the country understand it. They know they cannot compete against workers who make $6 a day, or $3 a day, and who work under deplorable working conditions. They cannot compete a country that lacks respect for basic human rights standards, that lacks respect for basic economic conditions, that doesn't allow people to speak up and call for a different policy without ending up in prison and being tortured. Colleagues, I have a democracy and human rights amendment on the floor. I am calling on the Senate to be its best. I am calling on us to support these values. I did not say that, as a condition of trade, we should say to these governments that they must live up to these standards though that is my wish. Instead, I am saying, at the very minimum we make it a priority in our trade negotiations and in our trade relations with other countries to at least call upon those countries to strive to meet internationally recognized civil, political and human rights standards. This amendment ask only that countries try. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 3454