Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me just thank my colleague, Senator Durbin, for his remarks. I think they were important. I hope we can translate what the Senator from Illinois had to say about this bill--not into action tomorrow because this is a conference report, there are no amendments, it is voted up or down--I hope it leads to some important changes in this legislative process. I listened to my colleague from Illinois, and there are two points that he made that I want to build on. The first has to do with the way this was done. I really think it is not just a question of the people in the country, whether they be in Illinois, whether they be in Minnesota, whether they be in Idaho, Alaska or any other State. It is not just a question of people in this country saying, ``Listen, we want to have campaigns, not auctions; is there a way we can get this big money out of politics?'' But we didn't do anything in this Congress. It is not just a question of people saying we are one of 43.5 million people with no health insurance, or we are elderly people who are paying a quarter of our budget for prescription drugs, or I am one of too many examples in the country where I was turned down for care that I needed by a kind of bottom-line medicine with insurance companies too much in control; isn't there any protection for me? It is not just bad enough we didn't respond to any of that. It is not enough that this Congress did absolutely nothing, in spite of all of the hype and too many of the speeches that were given for children in America. I am convinced that the ultimate indictment of the failure of this Congress to do hardly anything positive for people in our country is the way in which we continue to abandon too many children in the country and devalue the work of too many adults who work with those children. For all the families that said to us, Is there some way that you can make child care more affordable for us; is there some way that we can make sure that when both of us have to work, there is good child care for our children, child care that we can afford? --our response was to do nothing. It is not enough, Mr. President, that when it comes to the issue of living-wage jobs--which I think is going to become a bigger and bigger issue. Sometimes I fault my own party for continuing to talk about the number of jobs and the relatively low level of unemployment. But boy, I will tell you, when you add to the equation people who are only working part time because they can't find the full-time jobs, or when you add to the equation people who are working full time, 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week and are still poor in America and still look for a raise for themselves, a decent wage, again, the response of our Congress was to do nothing. I don't think that is the real issue that we are faced with here. I want to count myself as someone who is in profound disagreement with a Congress that basically has been a do-nothing Congress. I think that in the last several months out here on the floor, as a Senator who really believes in coming out here with amendments and trying to respond to people and really do something for people, it has been a little frustrating to have a process that is just not open and you are able to do that. I also understand the majority leader and some of what he has had to deal with. Now we have a bill before us--I heard my colleague from Illinois say, I think, 25 pounds. I heard it weighs 40 pounds. Somebody will have to weigh it. It is 2 feet tall. That is a third of my height, if you want to believe that. Actually, not quite. I guess I can't get away with that. But it is 2 feet tall, roughly 40 pounds, and we haven't even seen it. We have had staff that are now trying to evaluate it. Can you imagine? You have eight appropriations bills put into this piece of what Senator Byrd called ``this monstrosity,'' weighs close to 40 pounds, 2 feet tall, and we have hardly had a chance to look at it. And we are going to vote on it tomorrow. And in all due respect to my colleague from Alaska, I want to be clear about it. At least in the time I have been here--and I am not just trying to make friends because, boy, if Senator Stevens does not agree with you, he is out on the floor and he makes it clear what his position is--he is probably the best there is at getting things done here. It is amazing what he can put together. So I do not think it is a question of my colleague from Alaska. But looking at this overall process, it is no wonder that people lose confidence in us. We have to do better. It is just unbelievable. It is not true that process does not matter. If this just looks like a bunch of behind-the-scenes deal making, with very few people kind of deciding what is in and what is out of a bill that is--how many pages?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to proposed increases in military spending contained in the supplemental appropriations provisions for FY 1999, and to comment on even larger anticipated proposals for increases in the military budget for fiscal year 2000 and beyond that will be the subject of ongoing debate in Washington in the coming months. I have always been a strong supporter of our men and women in uniform, and I believe we must provide the best possible training, equipment, and preparation for our military forces, so they can effectively carry out whatever peacekeeping, humanitarian, war- fighting, or other missions they are given. But certain Republican proponents of increased defense spending here in Washington are trying to use an alleged ``readiness crisis'' to get $1 billion or more additional funding included in the omnibus appropriations bill to be considered before adjournment. And this is just the first step. Some Pentagon officials, and Republican defense hawks here in Congress, are reportedly already pressing the Administration to increase next year's budget request by up to $15 billion, and by an estimated $50-75 billion over the next five years. These numbers are in addition to the grossly wasteful and unnecessary military spending of recent years, much of which was over and above what the Pentagon itself had requested from Congress to complete its mission. These large increases are unjustified. Yes, I recognize that to a certain extent there are problems with readiness. There are shortages of spare parts in some areas, for example. It is reportedly difficult to retain pilots and other key personnel; certain of our armed forces, especially enlisted personnel, are suffering a declining quality of life. But if we look carefully at the military budget we can see that these readiness problems are not caused by inadequate military budgets, but rather by a wasteful and irresponsible, often politically-motivated misallocation of existing defense dollars to military programs and projects in states of key members of Congress. This is the crux of the matter. There is more than sufficient funding in the current budget to fix these problems if priorities are reassessed and money is redirected from wasteful and obsolete weapons programs to crucial readiness measures. We continue to pour billions into Cold War era weapons programs that are essentially massive pork projects for the states and districts of various members of Congress. Congress has also contributed to the readiness problems by refusing to close military bases which the Pentagon acknowledges are unneeded and obsolete, and has pressed to have closed. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and his colleagues on the Joint Staff, testified to this recently before the Armed Services Committee--they effectively said if you want us to fix these problems, then stop ramming down our throats weapons systems, ships and planes that we don't need, don't want, and haven't requested--and start closing down antiquated or outdated military bases that we can no longer afford to maintain, for which there is no reasonable purpose. Mr. President, as I've said, I believe in maintaining a strong national defense. We face a number of credible threats in the world today, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But let's make sure we carefully identify the threats we face and tailor our defense spending to meet them. Let's not continue to maintain military spending based on the needs of the Cold War. Mr. President, we do not need to spend more on the military. We only need to spend what we have already allocated more intelligently and more honestly. We do not need to give more money to an already bloated Pentagon for wasteful pork projects when we have so many urgent problems in this country that need attention. We need to focus on adequate funding for the hundreds of domestic programs that protect the vulnerable; protect our lakes and streams; provide health care for the vulnerable elderly; and create expanded opportunities for the broad middle class, such as student loans and job retraining. The real ``readiness'' crisis, Mr. President, is not in the military budget but in the readiness of the Congress to give up its attachment to wasteful pork projects, and in the readiness of Pentagon officials to make the hard choices about what programs are really necessary for the restructured military force we need to face the challenges of the 21st century. I expect that an omnibus bill will pass, and that some additional defense spending will be included in it for Bosnia and other needs. But I hope my colleagues will keep these concerns in mind as the defense spending debate moves forward next year. I intend to press forward my efforts here in the Senate to make sure we more responsibly balance our defense and domestic priorities, by scaling back wasteful defense spending, and reallocating existing military funds to address our readiness problems, so that we can invest more in the skills and intellect and character of our children; in basic health care for all; in decent education, affordable housing and jobs that can sustain families.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an important provision of the FY1999 VA/HUD appropriations bill. Thanks to the hard work and grassroots efforts of tenants and housing advocates across the country, this VA/HUD bill includes a 5 month minimum requirement to notify tenants and communities of an owner's intent to repay his or her federally assisted mortgage. This provision helps tenants of Section 236 and Section 221(d)(3) housing as created by the National Housing Act for federally assisted, privately owned affordable housing. Under the Section 221 program, the federal government insures the mortgages on certain rental housing; under the Section 236 program, the federal government subsidizes the interest payments that owners of rental housing made on the mortgages. Both of these programs offer the security of a federal subsidy for building owners in return for their maintaining these buildings as affordable housing. Regulatory agreements signed between HUD and the building owners restrict the rents which could be charged on the units within the building so long as the mortgage is insured or subsidized by HUD. To be eligible, an owner signs a 40 year mortgage; however, the owner can prepay the mortgage or end the contract after 20 years and has the ability to remove that building from the pool of affordable housing. Twenty years have now passed, and the legislative housing initiatives of the 1980s have failed to curb the collapse of this once sturdy guarantee of affordable housing for low-income families and individuals. One major provision is that owners of a Section 236 project simply need to give their tenants a 30-60 day notice that the property is under the prepayment process. All too often the prepayment of the mortgage by the owners results in a tremendous loss to the tenants of that project. Without the federally backed restriction on rents that can be charged, the prepayment of the mortgage opens the door to new owners who on average have increased the tenants monthly rent by 49%. This increase in rent forces low-income tenants out of their homes. This increase in rent forces these tenants to search for new housing, often in rental markets with exceptionally low vacancy rates. At the same time the supply of low-income housing takes a big hit, fewer and fewer units are available with each prepayment of Section 236 housing for the low-income families in desperate need of adequate housing. Mr. President, the Senate version of the VA/HUD bill included a provision to give tenants of Section 236 housing a fair notice--one full year--of the owner's intent to prepay the mortgage on the building. This critical one year notice was designed to accomplish two goals. First, it would have given the tenants a notice of the owner's prepayment intentions. For some tenants, especially those living in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area, finding housing has been extremely difficult. The vacancy rate is at 1.9%. It was simply unreasonably to expect those tenants to find alternative housing within only 30 days with such a low vacancy rate. In fact, it has been nearly impossible for low-income tenants and families to find adequate housing in such a short time in such a tight housing market. Secondly, the one year notice would have given a community the critical time necessary to begin to formulate options to keep that building available for those in need of affordable housing. I am pleased that the Senate is on record supporting the need for a fair notice to tenants. Unfortunately, the conference report does not include the full extent of my provision. The one-year notice period was reduced in the VA/HUD Conference Committee. It was reduced to not shorter than five months, but not longer than a nine months notice by owners. In addition, the provision now includes an enactment date effective 150 days after passage of the bill. Clearly, I am not enthusiastic about this revision to the notice requirement, but it is certainly an improvement over the current requirement of 30-60 days. As a result, the shorter time may only buy additional time for the families facing the increase in rent and their eventual move to alternative housing. I fear that the 5-9 months will not accord non-profits and communities with the necessary time to purchase the building and maintain those units as affordable housing. However, this revised provision does put the right foot forward. Not only is it a public acknowledgment that Congress sees the prepayment of Section 236 and Section 231 housing as a potential crisis facing the market, it gives tenants and communities the framework to find affordable alternatives for low-income families. This is only the first step. To truly restore fairness to the housing situation, tenants should have a longer period of time--one year or longer advance notice. The Senate is on record in support of a one-year notice and the next Congress should move to increase the notice period again. I am proud of the work that has been done, but I believe we have to do more. I thank my colleagues for supporting this important provision. While the revisions in the conference report may be the best possible solution to the crisis facing the tens of thousands of families dealing with the prepayment of their building, it does provide a necessary improvement to existing law.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Carl Youngblom, a great American from my state, who unexpectedly passed away earlier this year. Carl proudly served his nation as a Korean War veteran. He proudly served his community as former president of the St. Peter Rotary International. And he proudly served disabled veterans as a past Minnesota Department Commander of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV). In fact, I got to know Carl after he was elected DAV Department Commander in 1995. I can tell you from personal experience that he was a staunch advocate for disabled veterans and their families, often urging us in Congress to do well for our veterans, and I deeply respected him for that. According to his wife Val, he became such a strong veterans advocate out of love for his older brother, whose life was changed from being wounded in combat during World War II. Carl also had a strong connection to agriculture, starting as a family farmer and then moving to a career in agriculture finance. He was a fine athlete who loved to swim, cross country ski, and run. But perhaps most impressive was how his kindness touched people and how his compassion helped build consensus during times of conflict. We will miss him dearly. Mr. President, I conclude by asking my colleagues to join me in expressing to his loving wife Val and their children and grandchildren our nation's eternal gratitude for Carl Youngblom's significant and myriad contributions.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner for speaking about Kosovo. I am disappointed that the Senate has not brought a resolution to the floor and had a debate about what our response should be as a Nation to what is happening in Kosovo. I think it is a profound mistake on our part not to have this discussion given the fact that we are going to adjourn within the next couple of days. Mr. President, I want to be held accountable. I think we should all be held accountable as to what our viewpoints are and what we think our country should or should not do. Mr. President, while there have been some indications in recent days that the slaughter of innocent civilians has slowed--at least temporarily--we cannot afford to turn our attention away from the situation there. President Milosevic claims to have ordered some units of his army back to their barracks, but it is too early to tell exactly what these actions mean and whether Milosevic actually intends to cease his brutal offensive against the Albanian Kosovars. There is considerable evidence that he may not be truly pulling back in accordance with Western demands, but rather taking halfway measures that would allow his troops and tanks to return to the fighting almost immediately. UN Secretary General Annan reported earlier this week that there is still a significant presence of Serb armed forces in Kosovo, and that some special police units are continuing punitive operations against the local population. I remain deeply skeptical about Milosevic's intentions. We have had too much experience with Milosevic to take his statements at face value and to assume that the killing has really ended. We have seen his defiance of world opinion and international law for years. Recently we were all shocked by the horrific massacres of civilians-- the massacre of women, elderly men, even young children and infants. These killings, attributed to Serb security forces, are an affront to the international community. Now it looks as if Milosevic may have ordered a partial withdrawal of his attack forces, hoping to avoid imminent military action by NATO. He may believe that if the killings stop for a time, the attention of NATO and the U.S. will turn elsewhere. We must not allow that to happen. We must keep our focus on the crisis in Kosovo, and not become distracted by other issues. Unless immediate action is taken to forestall a humanitarian tragedy, we may soon see even more disturbing and gruesome pictures from Kosovo. With an estimated 150,000 people in Kosovo living out in the open without any shelter and with winter approaching, international relief agencies now fear that tens of thousands of those displaced persons could face severe hardship and some even death from exposure unless they can return to their homes or be provided adequate shelter within the next couple of weeks. The situation on the ground in Kosovo is heartbreaking. According to a report from a representative of the International Rescue Committee who recently visited the Kosovo countryside, young children are wandering around in the hills barefoot or in ripped sandals. Extended families of several generations are sleeping 15 to 20 to a tent. The tents are clear plastic supported only by bent saplings. Mothers are desperate to return home. Even if their houses are burned they would rather sleep in tents in their own yards then in the inhospitable hills. But they are afraid to return home, because every time they try to return snipers shoot at them. As the IRC report relates, these displaced Kosovars are trying to survive in areas where there is no food, no shelter, no schools for the children, no latrine system, and no other basic infrastructure. They have only the clothes they were wearing when they fled in the summer. The children have diarrhea from the dirty water and lack of sanitation. Parents watch, worried, as their children vomit all night and become dehydrated. Soon they will also have to face snow and freezing cold. These appalling conditions cannot continue. We must get aid to this terrorized population swiftly. But we can only get relief to them if Milosevic ceases his repression and allows relief agencies unfettered access. The Administration and our NATO allies must keep the pressure on Milosevic to put an end to Serb military action in Kosovo and to comply with the demands of the UN Security Council resolution of September 23. That resolution demands that both parties cease hostilities and maintain a cease-fire. The resolution also calls on Belgrade to (1) cease all action by the security forces affecting the civilian population and order the withdrawal of security forces used for civilian repression; (2) allow free access for international diplomatic monitors in Kosovo and unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations and supplies to Kosovo and; (3) make rapid progress on a clear timetable in conducting autonomy talks with the Kosovo Albanian community. I have also been encouraged that NATO has instructed its military commanders to begin preparations for possible military action and that NATO members have informed NATO Command what forces and equipment they are prepared to supply for actions in the Kosovo region. I have always been a Senator who insists that military actions abroad should always be a last resort. I still hope and pray, as a Senator from Minnesota, that in this situation we will not have to resort to force. I view it as a last option if we cannot resolve this situation by diplomatic means. But I also recognize that we cannot rule out the use of force, including the use of air strikes, in this situation. If the killing resumes or if Milosevic prevents relief from getting to the displaced Kosovars and fails to comply with the UN resolution and the demands of the international community, we may have to resort to military action. I met with Milosevic once. I wanted to see firsthand the genocide of several years ago. He was the first and only person I have met that I would not shake hands with. I don't think he can be believed, and I think that we have to send him a forceful message. To prepare for possible implementation of more forceful options developed by NATO planners, we should continue to move forward now, under NATO auspices, with pre-deployment in the region of appropriate levels of NATO military equipment and forces. This would include such actions as pre-positioning aircraft and naval vessels, and deployment of necessary materiel to support NATO troops. These moves would be intended to send another clear message to Milosevic that he must comply with the UN Security Council Resolution immediately. If he does not respond we must be ready to take further steps to force compliance as necessary. At the same time, we need to take other actions to keep the pressure on Milosevic. The U.S. should press forward on an intensified multilateral effort, at the United Nations and through regional bodies like the European Union, to firmly tighten the existing sanctions regime on Serbia, to re-impose other sanctions lifted after signing of the Dayton Peace Accord, and to otherwise increase pressure on Milosevic to comply. We must also accelerate U.S. and NATO logistical support for the ongoing international humanitarian aid effort in Kosovo, including pre- deployment of humanitarian supplies in Kosovo in anticipation of winter distribution by non-governmental organizations, while ensuring the safety and security of those who will rely on such aid. There must be no repeat of the disgraceful Bosnian ``safe haven'' disaster of Srebrenica. The U.S. and NATO must also press for immediate and unrestricted access in Kosovo for internationally-recognized human rights monitoring organizations, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and increase aid and intelligence support to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Mr. President, the U.S. and NATO are right to move forward now to send a clear and forceful message to Milosevic that he can no longer brazenly defy world opinion. The brutal slaughter of innocent non- combatants in Kosovo must stop now. If it continues, the West must have the resolve to do what is necessary to bring it to an end. And, if necessary, I want to say as a U.S. Senator, I think there should be airstrikes. I wanted to speak out before we leave and I want the Record to show that I have spoken out. I wish that the U.S. Senate had brought this matter up. Other Senators would have very different points of view, and I understand that. But it really troubles me, saddens me, that the Senate as a body has not had a thorough discussion and debate about what is a life-or-death matter. I wanted to at least have a chance to speak out. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for giving me some time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I'm introducing a bill that would bar firms owned by China's People's Liberation Army and People's Armed Police from operating in the United States and prohibit the import into the United States of products made by these firms or the export of products to these firms. It would also prohibit extension of credit to or ownership interest in Chinese military companies. The bill contains an exemption for humanitarian aid, waiving these prohibitions if the President determines that a transaction involves items intended to relieve human suffering such as food, medicine or emergency supplies. My bill is based in part on H.R. 4433 introduced in the House on August 6, 1998 by Representatives Gephardt, Bonior, and Pelosi, who I want to commend for taking this bold and important human rights initiative. Before I get into the key question of why I'm introducing this bill, I would like to touch on the question of the extent of PLA and People's Armed Police commercial relations with the United States. To begin with, I should stress that there is uncertainty about the extent and nature of activities of companies linked to Chinese military and security forces in the United States. For example, a Rand study last year estimated that there are ``between 20-30 PLA-affiliated companies operating in the United States, although there are certainly more that have not yet been identified.'' It added that one of the major obstacles to identifying these companies is that they ``often consciously disguise their military background by using offshore holding companies and unfamiliar names.'' Nevertheless, while there is much we don't know, there is some hard data available on PLA and People's Armed Police business dealings with the United States. In June, 1997 the AFL-CIO's Food and Allied Services Trades Department issued a report providing a wealth of detailed information on these business dealings. The report, based on extensive research, found twelve companies incorporated in the United States owned by the People's Armed Police and various elements of the PLA, including the General Staff Department and the Navy. In addition, the report cited seven PLA companies that had been dissolved after their officials had been accused of smuggling AK-47's into the United States in 1996--an episode I will discuss later. For each company, the report provided addresses and dates of incorporation, and for some companies the names of registered agents, officers, and directors. The AFL-CIO report also provided detailed data on the exports to the United States of twenty-five People's Armed Police and PLA companies during 1996. The companies included not only major PLA components such as the General Staff and General Logistics Departments, but also some owned by various PLA military regions. All told, these companies exported 34 million pounds of products to the United States, including furniture, chemicals, rain gear, toys, sport rifles, aircraft engines, and fish. According to an AFL-CIO official, PLA companies were the largest exporters of fish for U.S. fast-food restaurants. Finally, the report contained a listing of U.S. companies that had purchased these products. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last November, an AFL-CIO official pointed out that several well-known U.S. concerns had purchased products directly from PLA companies. While it is not illegal for the People's Armed Police and PLA companies to operate in the United States, on at least one occasion a major PLA company participated in a clearly illegal activity. In May, 1996, federal law enforcement agencies carried out a sting operation connected with seizure of 2,000 fully automatic AK-47 weapons from China. Since 1994 Chinese gun exports to the United States have been illegal and this was the largest seizure of fully automatic weapons in U.S. history. One of the two Chinese companies involved, Poly Technologies, is the most successful PLA-controlled company. Poly is run by China's princelings, family members of top Chinese civilian and military leaders. Poly's president is the late Deng Xiaoping's son-in- law and a retired PLA Major General. The Chairman of Poly is the son of the late Wang Zhen, who was China's vice-president and a retired General. While China experts doubt there was high-level collusion in the smuggling of AK-47's, a federal law enforcement officer noted that those involved were ``in a position to deliver substantial arms and are not low-level flunkies.'' Mr. President, I now want to turn to the key question of why I decided to introduce this bill. Why is there a need for such legislation? Because companies owned by the PLA--the Chinese Government's main and indispensable instrument of repression--are permitted to operate in the United States. Because the American people are unwittingly purchasing products exported to the United States by companies owned by the PLA and the People's Armed Police. Because the American people would be outraged--as deeply outraged as I am--if they knew they were subsidizing those responsible for massacring students, workers, and other demonstrators for democracy in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, those who have occupied Tibet for almost 50 years, brutally oppressing its people and seeking to erase their unique, cultural, linguistic, and religious heritage. And because they would be outraged--as deeply outraged as I am, that their government is not only doing nothing to stop this, but is opposing efforts to end PLA and People's Armed Police profit-making in the United States. Mr. President, you may well ask what is the People's Armed Police. The People's Armed Police, who are under the operational control of the PLA, are an internal security force of over 1 million troops, one of whose main purposes is to suppress the legitimate protests of the Chinese people. For example, the People's Armed Police is often used to quash the peaceful protests of Chinese workers. Last year the People's Armed Police was used to brutally break up protests by thousands of laid-off state enterprise workers in Sichuan province. Hundreds of these workers, who took to the streets because company officials embezzled their unemployment compensation, were reportedly beaten by the People's Armed Police and several ``instigators'' were arrested. Chinese officials were said to have ordered hospitals not to treat wounded demonstrators, comparing them to ``counterrevolutionary thugs'' who ``rioted'' at Tiananmen in June 1989. What were the laid-off workers seeking that provoked such a vicious crackdown by the People's Armed Police? Just that the government provide them with the subsistence they are entitled to and that corrupt company officials be punished. How can we continue to subsidize the thugs who repress Chinese workers? The People's Armed Police also man the guard towers of the Laogai, China's massive forced labor camp system--the largest in the world. The Laogai is China's version of the Soviet gulag. The Laogai is comprised of more than 1,100 forced labor camps, with an estimated population of 6 to 8 million prisoners. Prisoners are overworked, denied medical treatment and tortured. How can we continue to subsidize those who guard slave laborers? The People's Armed Police and the PLA are the key agents of repression in Tibet. The People's Armed Police have been filmed in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, beating monks and nuns peacefully demonstrating for their rights. This past May, the People's Armed Police and PLA soldiers reportedly fired on 150 Tibetan political prisoners who staged a demonstration in Tibet's main prison and the police later stormed the prison and arrested the demonstrators. Chinese officials were apparently offended when the political prisoners flew a Tibetan national flag during the demonstration. How can we continue to subsidize those who deny Tibetans fundamental freedoms, beat and torture them, and seek to destroy their unique culture and religion? Mr. President, this is shameful and it must be stopped. Would we have allowed Stalin's NKVD or Hitler's SS to subsidize their heinous activities by running profit-making entities in the United States and exporting goods to us and buying goods from us? Of course not. Why then do we allow the likes of the PLA and the People's Armed Police to profit from commercial relations with us and why does the Administration oppose efforts to put an end to this? Mr. President, the Administration in the past has justified the unjustifiable by arguing that imposing sanctions on PLA and People's Armed Police companies would be an ``impossible task'' for U.S. law enforcement agencies, risk retaliation against major U.S. exporters, and harm our efforts to develop a military-to-military dialog and relationship with China. While I believe these arguments don't hold water, they have been overtaken by events. In July, President Jiang Zemin ordered the PLA and the People's Armed Police to end the ``commercial activities'' of their subordinate units. There are some questions about the extent to which Jiang's orders will be carried out and over what time-frame. Tai Ming Cheung, a noted expert on China's military, foresees some shrinkage of the military-business complex, but predicts that it will ``remain powerful and more focused.'' Some China experts estimate that as much as one-third of total defense spending derive from profits from PLA businesses and it would obviously be difficult for the government to compensate the military for loss of this funding stream. Be this as it may, the fact remains that it is now Chinese government policy to end the commercial activities of the PLA and the People's Armed Police. I believe that the Senate should do all we can to help Beijing by passing my bill, which seeks to cut U.S. commercial ties with the PLA and the People's Armed Police and to end their business activities in the United States. Since we would be cooperating with Jiang's policies, the Administration can no longer point to alleged harmful effects on our military-to-military dialog or Chinese retaliation against U.S. exporters. Moreover, we would have reason to expect that the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies to implement the sanctions contained in this bill would be enhanced since PLA and People's Armed Police business activities would be illegal both in China and the United States. Jiang Zemin presumably would have incentives to end or at least circumscribe Chinese military and police business dealings with and in the United States and, perhaps, even cooperate with U.S. law enforcement agencies. While no one can predict how successful Jiang will be in eliminating or even in cutting back China's military-business complex, we must act to end U.S. subsidies to those who beat, torture, and imprison those who bravely fight for freedom and democracy. By contributing to PLA and People's Armed Police coffers we act in complicity with those who repress workers, run slave labor camps, crush religious freedom, quash Tibetans and other minorities seeking to preserve their identity culture and religion. We betray those who laid down their lives at Tiananmen Square, inspired by American principles of democracy and individual rights and we betray those brave dissidents who rot in Chinese jails or toil in forced labor camps, whose only crime was to fight for the ideals all Americans hold dear. It is time to end this complicity, end these betrayals of our friends. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I'm introducing a bill that would bar firms owned by China's People's Liberation Army and People's Armed Police from operating in the United States and prohibit the import into the United States of products made by these firms or the export of products to these firms. It would also prohibit extension of credit to or ownership interest in Chinese military companies. The bill contains an exemption for humanitarian aid, waiving these prohibitions if the President determines that a transaction involves items intended to relieve human suffering such as food, medicine or emergency supplies. My bill is based in part on H.R. 4433 introduced in the House on August 6, 1998 by Representatives Gephardt, Bonior, and Pelosi, who I want to commend for taking this bold and important human rights initiative. Before I get into the key question of why I'm introducing this bill, I would like to touch on the question of the extent of PLA and People's Armed Police commercial relations with the United States. To begin with, I should stress that there is uncertainty about the extent and nature of activities of companies linked to Chinese military and security forces in the United States. For example, a Rand study last year estimated that there are ``between 20-30 PLA-affiliated companies operating in the United States, although there are certainly more that have not yet been identified.'' It added that one of the major obstacles to identifying these companies is that they ``often consciously disguise their military background by using offshore holding companies and unfamiliar names.'' Nevertheless, while there is much we don't know, there is some hard data available on PLA and People's Armed Police business dealings with the United States. In June, 1997 the AFL-CIO's Food and Allied Services Trades Department issued a report providing a wealth of detailed information on these business dealings. The report, based on extensive research, found twelve companies incorporated in the United States owned by the People's Armed Police and various elements of the PLA, including the General Staff Department and the Navy. In addition, the report cited seven PLA companies that had been dissolved after their officials had been accused of smuggling AK-47's into the United States in 1996--an episode I will discuss later. For each company, the report provided addresses and dates of incorporation, and for some companies the names of registered agents, officers, and directors. The AFL-CIO report also provided detailed data on the exports to the United States of twenty-five People's Armed Police and PLA companies during 1996. The companies included not only major PLA components such as the General Staff and General Logistics Departments, but also some owned by various PLA military regions. All told, these companies exported 34 million pounds of products to the United States, including furniture, chemicals, rain gear, toys, sport rifles, aircraft engines, and fish. According to an AFL-CIO official, PLA companies were the largest exporters of fish for U.S. fast-food restaurants. Finally, the report contained a listing of U.S. companies that had purchased these products. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last November, an AFL-CIO official pointed out that several well-known U.S. concerns had purchased products directly from PLA companies. While it is not illegal for the People's Armed Police and PLA companies to operate in the United States, on at least one occasion a major PLA company participated in a clearly illegal activity. In May, 1996, federal law enforcement agencies carried out a sting operation connected with seizure of 2,000 fully automatic AK-47 weapons from China. Since 1994 Chinese gun exports to the United States have been illegal and this was the largest seizure of fully automatic weapons in U.S. history. One of the two Chinese companies involved, Poly Technologies, is the most successful PLA-controlled company. Poly is run by China's princelings, family members of top Chinese civilian and military leaders. Poly's president is the late Deng Xiaoping's son-in- law and a retired PLA Major General. The Chairman of Poly is the son of the late Wang Zhen, who was China's vice-president and a retired General. While China experts doubt there was high-level collusion in the smuggling of AK-47's, a federal law enforcement officer noted that those involved were ``in a position to deliver substantial arms and are not low-level flunkies.'' Mr. President, I now want to turn to the key question of why I decided to introduce this bill. Why is there a need for such legislation? Because companies owned by the PLA--the Chinese Government's main and indispensable instrument of repression--are permitted to operate in the United States. Because the American people are unwittingly purchasing products exported to the United States by companies owned by the PLA and the People's Armed Police. Because the American people would be outraged--as deeply outraged as I am--if they knew they were subsidizing those responsible for massacring students, workers, and other demonstrators for democracy in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, those who have occupied Tibet for almost 50 years, brutally oppressing its people and seeking to erase their unique, cultural, linguistic, and religious heritage. And because they would be outraged--as deeply outraged as I am, that their government is not only doing nothing to stop this, but is opposing efforts to end PLA and People's Armed Police profit-making in the United States. Mr. President, you may well ask what is the People's Armed Police. The People's Armed Police, who are under the operational control of the PLA, are an internal security force of over 1 million troops, one of whose main purposes is to suppress the legitimate protests of the Chinese people. For example, the People's Armed Police is often used to quash the peaceful protests of Chinese workers. Last year the People's Armed Police was used to brutally break up protests by thousands of laid-off state enterprise workers in Sichuan province. Hundreds of these workers, who took to the streets because company officials embezzled their unemployment compensation, were reportedly beaten by the People's Armed Police and several ``instigators'' were arrested. Chinese officials were said to have ordered hospitals not to treat wounded demonstrators, comparing them to ``counterrevolutionary thugs'' who ``rioted'' at Tiananmen in June 1989. What were the laid-off workers seeking that provoked such a vicious crackdown by the People's Armed Police? Just that the government provide them with the subsistence they are entitled to and that corrupt company officials be punished. How can we continue to subsidize the thugs who repress Chinese workers? The People's Armed Police also man the guard towers of the Laogai, China's massive forced labor camp system--the largest in the world. The Laogai is China's version of the Soviet gulag. The Laogai is comprised of more than 1,100 forced labor camps, with an estimated population of 6 to 8 million prisoners. Prisoners are overworked, denied medical treatment and tortured. How can we continue to subsidize those who guard slave laborers? The People's Armed Police and the PLA are the key agents of repression in Tibet. The People's Armed Police have been filmed in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, beating monks and nuns peacefully demonstrating for their rights. This past May, the People's Armed Police and PLA soldiers reportedly fired on 150 Tibetan political prisoners who staged a demonstration in Tibet's main prison and the police later stormed the prison and arrested the demonstrators. Chinese officials were apparently offended when the political prisoners flew a Tibetan national flag during the demonstration. How can we continue to subsidize those who deny Tibetans fundamental freedoms, beat and torture them, and seek to destroy their unique culture and religion? Mr. President, this is shameful and it must be stopped. Would we have allowed Stalin's NKVD or Hitler's SS to subsidize their heinous activities by running profit-making entities in the United States and exporting goods to us and buying goods from us? Of course not. Why then do we allow the likes of the PLA and the People's Armed Police to profit from commercial relations with us and why does the Administration oppose efforts to put an end to this? Mr. President, the Administration in the past has justified the unjustifiable by arguing that imposing sanctions on PLA and People's Armed Police companies would be an ``impossible task'' for U.S. law enforcement agencies, risk retaliation against major U.S. exporters, and harm our efforts to develop a military-to-military dialog and relationship with China. While I believe these arguments don't hold water, they have been overtaken by events. In July, President Jiang Zemin ordered the PLA and the People's Armed Police to end the ``commercial activities'' of their subordinate units. There are some questions about the extent to which Jiang's orders will be carried out and over what time-frame. Tai Ming Cheung, a noted expert on China's military, foresees some shrinkage of the military-business complex, but predicts that it will ``remain powerful and more focused.'' Some China experts estimate that as much as one-third of total defense spending derive from profits from PLA businesses and it would obviously be difficult for the government to compensate the military for loss of this funding stream. Be this as it may, the fact remains that it is now Chinese government policy to end the commercial activities of the PLA and the People's Armed Police. I believe that the Senate should do all we can to help Beijing by passing my bill, which seeks to cut U.S. commercial ties with the PLA and the People's Armed Police and to end their business activities in the United States. Since we would be cooperating with Jiang's policies, the Administration can no longer point to alleged harmful effects on our military-to-military dialog or Chinese retaliation against U.S. exporters. Moreover, we would have reason to expect that the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies to implement the sanctions contained in this bill would be enhanced since PLA and People's Armed Police business activities would be illegal both in China and the United States. Jiang Zemin presumably would have incentives to end or at least circumscribe Chinese military and police business dealings with and in the United States and, perhaps, even cooperate with U.S. law enforcement agencies. While no one can predict how successful Jiang will be in eliminating or even in cutting back China's military-business complex, we must act to end U.S. subsidies to those who beat, torture, and imprison those who bravely fight for freedom and democracy. By contributing to PLA and People's Armed Police coffers we act in complicity with those who repress workers, run slave labor camps, crush religious freedom, quash Tibetans and other minorities seeking to preserve their identity culture and religion. We betray those who laid down their lives at Tiananmen Square, inspired by American principles of democracy and individual rights and we betray those brave dissidents who rot in Chinese jails or toil in forced labor camps, whose only crime was to fight for the ideals all Americans hold dear. It is time to end this complicity, end these betrayals of our friends. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak yesterday and I don't want to really repeat the arguments I made yesterday. I do not intend to vote for this bill today, but I think that by the end of the week, or at least I am hopeful, we will be able to resolve our differences and pass a farm relief bill that will do the job--or at least will be a huge help for family farmers in Minnesota and across the country. Mr. President, the President of the United States indicated on Saturday that the farm relief bill--this bill that we are looking at right now, which we will be voting on--is inadequate. He has said that more will need to be done with farm relief. It will have to be improved before he can sign an Agriculture appropriations bill. I am hopeful that either following the veto of this bill, or as part of the negotiations --and I think I have a different view from my colleague from Idaho, I am not sure--as part of the negotiations on the emergency supplemental packages, which may be included in an omnibus appropriations bill, we will see an improved version of this farm relief package. I said yesterday to my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, I much appreciate the work he has done. We have come a significant way from where we were. This is a $4 billion relief package. I think that given the position the President has taken --and as a Senator from Minnesota, I have certainly requested that he take this position; I have said I hope he will veto this bill or wait until we get some kind of relief package that I think would do a better job. I have to continue to fight as long and as hard as I can for family farmers in my State, for what I think will be most helpful to them. Frankly, I believe that given the Senators who are dealing with this question on both sides of the aisle--we all care fiercely about agriculture, and I think we have an understanding about it--I don't see any reason why, by the end of this week, given the position the President has taken, we can't have some really strenuous, but I think substantive, negotiations and come up with a much better relief package. Now, this relief package that my colleague, Senator Cochran, brings to the floor of the Senate is a credible effort. But I think it is insufficient. There is an inadequate amount of money, and I think it utilizes the wrong mechanism to deliver the assistance that is meant to address the price crisis. Let me just be clear about what is at issue here. Surely, given the position the President is taking, which is the position that the Senator from Minnesota and many other Midwestern Senators asked him to take, which is to make it clear that he will veto this bill unless there are negotiations and we can get a better package. Why have we taken this position? Well, our proposal, $7 billion-plus, and the proposal we have before us on the floor of the Senate are similar in that both include between $2 billion and $2.5 billion for indemnity assistance for crop loss. This is an increase from the original $500 million, which many of us worked very hard to include in the original Senate bill. It is not surprising. There are a whole lot of people who have really been hit hard and who need the help. The Republican package, however, that is before us also contains an additional $1.7 billion. So there is agreement on the indemnity part. We went from $500 million to $2 billion to $2.5 billion. The Republican package also contains about $1.7 billion to address the price crisis. The way they deliver this assistance is through a supplemental or bonus transition payment, and that is where there is a big disagreement. The prices for our major commodities, such as wheat, corn and soybeans, are 15 to 30 percent below the 5-year market average. Our $5 billion proposal to address the price crisis--where there is the difference here--would lift the current caps on the loan rate and raise those loan rates about 57 cents a bushel for wheat, about 28 cents a bushel for corn, and over 20 cents a bushel for soybeans. This would not only immediately boost farm income for the farmers of these commodities, but in raising the loan rate, it also has a beneficial effect on market prices. It tends to lift them up. That is why I think our proposal is superior. Mr. President, I worry about these transition payments because I think there are a couple of problems with them. First of all, these payments are based on the old farm program's historic yields. Farmers such as traditional soybean farmers, who never had a program based on the old program, don't get any of these AMTA payments. That is one huge problem. On the other hand, it is possible for some people who might not even have planted a crop to receive them because the Freedom to Farm--or what I call the ``Freedom to Fail''--payments are completely unconnected to production or price. I have to tell you, that is the key issue. That is the key difference. At the very minimum, in dealing with the price crisis, we ought to make sure that the payments are connected to production and price. So what we have here in this bill is the wrong mechanism for addressing the price crisis. Our proposal would lift the cap on the loan rates. I think there can be negotiation. The President is correct in vetoing this bill if that is what is required to get better assistance. Thousands of family farmers across the country could go out of business due to conditions that are beyond their control. In Minnesota, up to 20 percent of our family farmers are threatened. Now, the other part of this is that the Democratic proposal for the State of Minnesota is worth about an additional one-quarter of a billion dollars. I ask the Chair, has 20 minutes expired?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the manager know whether or not others are going to come over on our side?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do those in opposition have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. The proposal is worth an additional one-quarter of a billion dollars for agriculture in Minnesota, for rural Minnesota, for what we call ``greater Minnesota.'' It is no small amount of money, especially when you consider the multiplier effect in our communities. So I say to my colleague, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, this is a start. I am going to vote against this. The President has said he is going to veto it unless there is further negotiation. I think we can do better. I don't like the rider that basically continues another 6 months with the dairy compact. I have dairy farmers in my State who are going under because of very unfair pricing mechanisms. In addition, I emphasis again, we are in agreement when it comes to crop losses, disaster, people who didn't have the insurance because of wet weather, scab disease or whatever. We are not in agreement on the price. There are two problems. The main one is at the very minimum you have to target the price, whatever you do by way of dealing with low prices. You have to make sure that the payments are connected to the production of the price. Too many of these transition payments go to landowners, and not necessarily producers. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. Some, like soybean growers, won't be helped at all. I think we can do better on the price part. I think we have to do better if this relief package is going to do the job. I think we have some differences out here. They are honestly held differences. All of us care about agriculture. All of us know what the economic and personal pain is out there in the countryside. Some are quite often critical of some of the President's policies, but I thank him for exerting strong leadership on this question and for making it clear that surely this week in negotiations we can do better. We can come up with an even better package. My colleague from Mississippi brings a package out here that is an important start. We are going to get the job done by the end of the week or by next week. We are going to get the job done. We are going to have a relief package, because we have to, because that is why we are here. I believe we can do that through the negotiations that are to come. bison inspection

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, first of all, I would like to start out thanking my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. Above and beyond his ability as Senator, I think probably the best thing about him is his civility, and I wish I wasn't in profound disagreement with my colleague, but I am. I do wish to thank him for some of the good things in this bill. In this appropriations bill, we are talking about farm programs; we are talking about nutrition programs, forestry, and also there is a great deal of research money. In particular, I am very pleased that we are going to see additional funding for research of the scab disease which is a terribly important problem for my State and certainly for North Dakota as well. The faculty at the University of Minnesota is doing some very important research in this area. Madam President, I talked to our FSA director, Wally Sparby, and he sent me some information that I might just start out with. Mr. Sheldon Erickson from Roseau, MN at Border State Bank is talking about the situation of bankers: 90 percent of his farmers can't repay in 1998; 25 percent he won't be able to lend to in 1999; he says more equity lending is required but less is available. Percy Blake of Bremer Bank in Crookston, MN: 75 percent of borrowers won't be able to meet their obligations in 1998; 50 percent are in jeopardy of not being financed in the coming year; he says that regulators are trying to pressure them away from equity financing. We have a plea and cry from not just family farmers in our communities, but from the lenders and small businesses and from the citizens, I say to my colleague from Mississippi. I have here petitions from all over the State of Minnesota. People who signed these petitions did this with some hope. It says: We, the people of rural Minnesota, exercising our constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of grievances, hereby state and declare: That the exceptionally low prices being paid for farm commodities in the State of Minnesota constitute a dire threat, a crisis imperiling residents, businesses and institutions of rural communities who are demanding an immediate response from our Federal Government; that without action by the Secretary of Agriculture to increase the support prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, small grains, hogs, cattle and dairy products and to extend loans and increase loan rates and to make crop insurance coverage effective, thousands of families relying on farming and rural businesses will lose their livelihoods; that the 1996 Federal farm bill must be revised this year in order to restore an economic safety net for family farmers and allow them to support rural small businesses and community institutions; that these destructive policies must be reversed to ensure healthy main streets, full schools and full churches in rural communities of the State of Minnesota. I say to the Chair, I don't know how many signatures there are here, but this is just a sample of the people. Let me show you those who have signed their names to this with the hope that it will make a difference. Madam Chair, the differences between this bill's $4 billion package and the $7 billion package that we proposed are ones that make a difference. Part of it has to do with the amount of assistance, but the big issue is the price crisis. I am actually not going to speak that long on the floor of the Senate because my colleagues, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska and Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, have already spoken about this. In many ways what we are struggling with is not just the wet weather and not just the scab disease, but disastrously low prices. It is hard to believe that we really want to have such a low cap as that in the Freedom to Farm bill--I call it the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill--at a time when prices are so low. In our proposal we talked about taking the current cap off the loan rate. As I hear from people in our communities--not just the farmers but the lenders as well--this is the most direct and dramatic way that we can get some income to these families. We would raise the loan rate about 57 cents a bushel for wheat, about 27 cents a bushel for corn, and over 20 cents a bushel for soybeans. That would be what would happen if we would lift the cap. What was not anticipated--I think my colleague from Mississippi would agree with me on this point--when the Freedom to Farm bill, or ``Freedom to Fail'' bill, was passed, was that the prices would plummet. I do not think Senators realized that, although I think farmers have always known that prices go up and down. What happened is we basically eliminated the leverage the farmers have in the marketplace --where the loan rate helps them in their dealing with grain companies. In addition there was a safety net that was extremely important. At least it provided some direct assistance to people. We have eliminated that. I say to my colleagues today, I appreciate their work, but this relief package will not do the job. It is impossible for me as a Senator to come out here and speak for it or to vote for it. It is very important that the President veto this. The President said he will. It is important that we get back to negotiations and work out a package together. It has to be a bipartisan package. Just in terms of corn growers who currently are receiving $1.50 a bushel for corn or less, they cannot cash flow on that. The same is going on with our wheat farmers--low prices. I think surely we will hear from Senator Feingold from Wisconsin. Senator Kohl actually has just come out on the floor. Our dairy farmers in the upper Midwest have been going under. We have a federal milk marketing order system that is absolutely discriminatory, and there is a legislative rider in this appropriations bill which effectively extends that discrimination another half a year. That is completely unsatisfactory, at the very time the Secretary of Agriculture has put a process into effect to examine and reform this system. That reform process is not enough for many of us, but we appreciate it as a positive step, moving forward. Now that reform process will be postponed for an additional 6 months under the provision of this legislative rider, which in addition has the effect of extending for 6 months the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, another policy which has a discriminatory effect upon dairy producers and the dairy industry of the upper Midwest. So, as a Senator from Minnesota, I cannot in good conscience support an appropriations bill that will not provide the needed assistance to family farmers in rural communities in my State. It would amount to betrayal. People are in desperate shape. That is the ``why'' of all these petitions. That is the ``why'' of all the meetings I have attended: in Crookston, East Grand Forks, Granite Falls, Fulda, Worthington. That is the ``why'' of grown men and women crying because they are being driven off their farms. They work there, they live there, it is everything that they have ever worked for. Nobody can say we are talking about a group of citizens who do not work hard, but this just seems beyond their control. Now we have an appropriations bill that does not deal with the price crisis, that does not get enough relief out there, that is not going to enable these people to stay on the farms. It does not do the job. I think family farmers in rural America know that. We have to do better. Senator Cochran has done all that he can do. I think he has pushed hard for what he thinks is right. But some of the rest of us have to come out here and we have to fight hard for what we think is right. The President has to stay strong, and he has said he will veto this bill. We need to go back to the table and put negotiations on a fast-track to get a farm crisis relief package that will do the job. For my State, the differences between the two packages amount to a quarter of a billion dollars. That is $250 million more for family farmers and small businesses in rural communities. This is a decisive moment for the State of Minnesota, for agriculture and for family farmers. In many parts of our country we hardly have a family farm structure of agriculture any longer, where the people who live on the land make the investments and work on the land. In the Midwest I think we understand a very sound economic point, which is also, I think, a social message: the health and vitality of our communities are not based upon the number of acres that are farmed or the number of animals that are owned. Somebody will always farm that land or own that land. The question is, Are we going to have family farmers? The health and vitality of our communities are based upon the number of farmers--I say to the Senator from Wisconsin--the number of family dairy farmers. We have a crisis, and that crisis deserves a strong and effective response from the U.S. Congress. This appropriations bill--and I say this not in a shrill way but in a very determined way--is not an adequate response to that crisis. Therefore, I will vote against it. I call on the President to veto it. And I call on my colleagues please to work together and do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today to recognize Andy Williams, an individual who along with only seven others in the nation, has received the National Crime Prevention Council's Ameritech, Award of Excellence in Crime Prevention. Andy, while employed as a cab driver, made a decision in 1989 that inner-city youth needed both good role models and more chances to learn. He has since devoted his time, energy, and limited resources to the city of St. Paul's young people. Youth in St. Paul have benefited by the creation of his first program, Worker's Organization to Regain Confidence (WORC). After working a 7 or 8 hour day in his cab, he used it to collect kids from school and take them to miscellaneous jobs he had set up for them, providing an alternative to after-school delinquency and crime. Kids took on various jobs such as cleaning windows for a local business, running a lawn service, delivering dinners, learning how to repair small engines, and shovel snow. These programs usually involved 12 to 14 participants. A successful year later, he expanded WORC into a non-profit organization, guiding at-risk youth in the St. Paul communities of Frogtown and Summit-University. WORC and his newly created subsidiary, SOCK (Save Our City Kids), cooperate with other non-profits to provide work skills, peer counseling, and apprenticeship opportunities. These help the students develop self-confidence, self-respect, and more of the skills crucial to becoming self-sufficent. Andy has since created several other fruitful programs which continue to benefit the community. His innovations have enabled him and several hundred students to achieve a vision which reflects the nature of the Ameritech Award. His efforts and commitment are a great example for those who wish to make a difference in their own communities. The other programs include: WORC on Bikes, the Drop-In-Center, the Let's Talk program, and Whiz Kids. WORC on Bikes is a program in which youth learn to repair bicycles and eventually earn their own bikes. The Drop-In- Center is a place where any adult or child can stop and discuss personal concerns, such as family problems, alcohol and drug abuse, and violence. The Let's Talk program empowers youth, teenagers, adults, and parents by providing the tools with which solutions to social problems can begin to be addressed. Whiz Kids is a community-based computer education program which makes technology more accessible to youth, while assisting them in developing related skills to prepare them for future endeavors. It is funded entirely through private donations. Clearly, Andy was selected for this award for his ability to truly make a difference, to persevere, to work for positive results in the lives of youth in the realm of crime prevention and far beyond. On behalf of the children and families who have profited from his exemplary efforts to better various communities in St. Paul, my thanks for his devoted and lasting contribution to the future of our children, and my congratulations on his well-deserved award.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I support H.R. 3412, the ``Year 2000 Readiness and Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.'' The bill makes useful reforms to existing Small Business Administration (SBA) programs and authorizes certain new initiatives, including a community development venture capital demonstration program which I proposed during markup in the Small Business Committee. I commend Chairman Bond for his leadership on the bill, and I thank him for including my proposal in it. The bill makes permanent SBA's 504 liquidation pilot program, a step I strongly support. Minnesota certified development companies with proven liquidation and foreclosure capabilities have made use of the pilot program, which can help bring costs down and save borrowers from higher fees. The bill's adjustments to the loan loss reserve requirements in the Microloan program also are appropriate. Requiring a loss reserve based on past performance makes sense. This provision will continue to protect the government's interest in these loans but will allow the majority of microlenders to make more loans or provide more technical assistance to borrowers. I am especially pleased that my proposal to create a new $20-million, four-year demonstration program at the SBA to develop the capacity of community development venture capital (CDVC) organizations is part of H.R. 3412. I thank Senator Bond again for his support and for working with me to get this amendment accepted. I also thank the SBA for working with my staff and for providing valuable technical assistance in drafting the amendment. The CDVC Program is about directing venture capital--equity and investment capital--to small businesses with the aim of promoting business growth and economic development in poor communities. That's what we mean by community development venture capital or CDVC. The money the bill authorizes would not be directly invested into small businesses; instead, it would go to provide technical assistance to organizations that invest in businesses in low-income communities. CDVC organizations have been highly successful at producing a ``double bottom line'' of strong financial returns and significant social benefits. CDVC funds create social and financial payoffs because they consider the community impact of their investments to be just as important as the financial returns to investors. Community development venture capitalists target investments to companies that generate good jobs--jobs that pay decent wages, jobs with benefits, jobs with opportunity to advance. They influence and shape the culture of young companies with respect to sustainable development and environmental policies. They look to create local entrepreneurial capacity, local ownership, local wealth. The ``double bottom line'' philosophy is what makes these venture capitalists so unique and their work so promising. The goal of the CDVC program is to expand and multiply this very meritorious work. There are about 30 CDVC funds currently operating in urban and rural communities around the country. Northeast Ventures Corporation in Duluth, Minnesota, is a good example of a successful and experienced CDVC company. Northeast Ventures serves a seven county rural area and focuses on creating good jobs in high value-added industries. Northeast Ventures targets 50% of the jobs created through its investments to women, low-income and structurally unemployed persons. They also require portfolio companies to offer employees an opportunity to participate in a health care plan in which the employer makes some contribution. Partridge River is an example of one of Northeast Ventures successful investments. Northeast made an initial investment in Partridge River, a locally owned specialized manufacturer of precision and wood component parts for furniture and cabinets, in late 1990. Partridge River uses readily available light-colored woods such as aspen, basswood, birch and maples, and has manufacturing customers throughout the United States. When the company needed significant financing for an upgrade of equipment in 1994, another investor purchased Northeast's stake at a significant premium and allowed the entrepreneur to maintain majority ownership. Over the course of Northeast's involvement, the company added 17 net new employees from northeast Minnesota. Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation (KHIC), founded in 1968 in London, Kentucky, is one of the oldest and most successful of the CDVC organizations. They focus on developing profitable businesses that provide job opportunities to residents of Southeast Kentucky. For example, KHIC provided over $600,000 in equity financing to a startup company that manufactures casements for the retail store industry. That company now employs over 125 people who had few prospects for employment in their home county. This company would not be located in rural Clay County if not for the type of equity investment that KHIC made available. Altogether, KHIC has infused about $40 million in venture capital in their region, invested in more than 100 companies and created over 5,200 jobs. The organizations operating CDVC funds have been fortunate in attracting talented and dedicated people, but the skills and expertise to produce a double bottom line are still relatively scarce. The CDVC Demonstration Program allows the most experienced and successful in this growing field to teach, advise, and mentor the less experienced, the new and emerging community development venture capitalists. The CDVC Demonstration Program authorizes $20 million over four years. Seventy-five percent or $15 million will be used as grants to intermediary organizations--the private, nonprofit organizations with the most experience and skill in making venture capital investments in poor communities--to provide hands-on technical assistance to the new and emerging venture funds springing up in low-income communities around the country. In addition to providing technical assistance, intermediaries will be able to use the grants to fund the start up and operating costs of new CDVC organizations. Grants to intermediaries will be matched $1 for $1 with funds raised from non-Federal sources. Twenty-five percent or $5 million will be used as grants to developmental organizations--public or private firms--to create and operate training programs, intern programs, a national conference, and academic research and study of community development venture capital. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will support these reforms and new initiatives in the name of good jobs, entrepreneurship and responsibility to community.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I yield 5 minutes to Senator Murray, serving on the same committee, the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I thank Senator Collins for all the work she put into this piece of legislation. She clearly not only has a higher education background but she is very committed to education. It is wonderful to see Senators who have her commitment, and I thank her for her work. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I also echo what I said. There are some Senators here who have really dug into the committee. The same could be said for the Chair, who is on the Labor and Human Resources Committee. I think this is a bipartisan effort. I love Senator Murray's passion for children and education. I say to the Senator from Washington, I think probably more people and more families in Washington, Minnesota, Wyoming, and the country are more focused on education right now than any other issue. The Senator has been a real leader in the area, and I thank her.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also want to thank colleagues on both sides. Senator Jeffords has done a great job in our committee. I feel a little awkward because there is a lot in this higher education bill that I worked on myself and with other colleagues in the committee. I think this is a good piece of legislation. I was pleased to vote for it. I am very pleased with the bill's distance education provisions, which I worked on a great deal. I think the Chair also is very interested in these issues, and we worked together on this portion of the bill. Distance education is very important for those of us who come from communities where we really still have strong rural parts to our States. I think the bill's focus on applying Pell grants to summer school is really important, especially for our ``nontraditional students,'' students who are older and going back to school. The bill's coordinated response dealing with violence on campus between local law enforcement and the institutions of higher education is real important; the bill's coordinated response to the problem of binge drinking also is terribly important. I think there is much in this higher education bill that is important for our country. I thank colleagues. I also thank Roger Wolfson, who has been working with me, on my staff, and has really been responsible for some of the good amendments that we were, working with others, able to incorporate into this legislation. I have not covered all in this legislation that I feel very strongly about. But I want to speak to one flaw in this higher education bill. I am going to speak about this with, I guess, some indignation. When we passed this higher education bill on the floor of the Senate, there was an amendment that dealt with the welfare bill, though it was an amendment to the higher education bill--and that is where it should have been. It passed 56 to 42; 11 Republicans joined Senate Democrats in supporting the provision. There were over 125 higher education and civil rights organizations that supported this amendment; there were strong editorials in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, Minnesota Star and Tribune and other newspapers around the country. As I think about Senators who were out here on the floor speaking about this, the Senator who maybe spoke with the most eloquence, certainly the strongest feeling, was the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford. Any number of Senators supported this amendment which I am about to describe, even though they also supported the welfare bill. I did not support the welfare bill. They did. I will talk about that in a moment. But this amendment said nothing other than this: That any State that wanted to would be allowed to allow a parent, a welfare parent--almost all of these parents are women; I think the Chair, from what I know of him, would agree with me that men ought to be taking more responsibility for their children as well--that when it comes to single parents, mothers--we would allow States to allow these women to complete at least 2 years of higher education without having any State penalized for doing so. Wyoming would not have to provide these two years, Minnesota would not have to provide these two years, but if Wyoming and Minnesota decide it would be better for these women to be able to complete 2 years of higher education, which could be vocational-technical or another program like a nursing assistant program, then the State should be able to do that and the State would not be penalized. It would not count against the State meeting its work participation requirement. That amendment passed the U.S. Senate, and then it went to conference committee. Mr. President, this is a single photograph. It is of Troyce Williams, but there are a lot of women like her. This all translates into human terms. She is a single mother of four children who is at the Minneapolis Community College, a community and technical college, at which she is trying to get her higher education completed. There are many, many women like her. What I felt good about as a Senator was that after this amendment passed, we got all sorts of calls and all sorts of letters from people all across the country. This was an amendment that would have really made a difference. It would have really made a difference because what a lot of people in our community colleges and in our higher education community were saying was that we were going to speak up for our students. This was a mistake we made when we passed the TANF. When we passed the welfare bill we probably should have been clear at the Federal level we would have some language that would give States the flexibility, if they wanted to, to allow these parents to complete at least 2 years of higher education. Now I am not going to bore anybody here today about all of the statistics that make the point that every single citizen in this country understands: If you are able to go on and complete 2 years or 4 years of higher education, you are going to be in a better position to find a good job and give your children the care you know they need and deserve. This amendment passes. Then we go to conference committee. I am just furious about what happened in conference committee. We met, and the House conferees, the majority House conferees, Republicans, said no to the amendment, and they were not interested in talking about anything else by way of maybe something else we could do that would make a difference. Mr. President, it is just simply bitterly ironic that the very women who are on the path to economic self-sufficiency, because they are trying to complete at least 2 years of higher education, all too often get driven out of school because States feel like they will be penalized if they do not get these women into the workforce. Then they get into the workforce and they find a job at $6 an hour, and then 1 year later they lose their medical assistance and they and their children are worse off. Whereas, if they could complete 2 years of higher education they would be better off. We come to conference committee and I am just going to repeat what happened. I do no damage to the truth, because I want to make a point about what is at stake here--not just on this amendment but, sort of, politics in our country. The Chair may not agree with me, but I get to speak my piece on the floor of the Senate. Now, the Republicans in the House come in and they say, ``We want this Wellstone amendment out.'' Forget my name. I am not important. ``We want this amendment out.'' And I will not use names because there is no one here to debate me and that would not be fair. On the House side, they are not here to debate me. So the person who is kind of the point person in making this argument says, ``This would be a terrible amendment.'' And then I hear everybody saying, ``This welfare bill was hallmark legislation. It is the best thing we have done in a half a century. It is so successful that we cannot touch it--this is nothing less than an effort to undermine this welfare bill.'' Mr. President, first of all, a lot of people who voted for this amendment did not vote for this amendment to undermine the welfare bill. They thought it was a modification that was needed. They thought that the welfare bill would work better if we allowed States to allow these women to complete at least 2 years of higher education. But I am going to make another point. I then turned--and for all I know the Chair was there at the conference committee--I turned to people who made this presentation and I said you keep talking about how successful this welfare bill is, and you talk about the number of people who are no longer on welfare, the number of women and children who are no longer on our welfare rolls. That is true; maybe 4 or 5 million fewer people. My question for you, since you told me how successful it is--even though I would rather debate this in a higher education framework, let me raise this question. Let me raise this question on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We have seen a dramatic reduction in the welfare rolls. Have we seen a dramatic reduction in poverty? Can any of you, from any State, provide me with any data as to where these mothers and children are, what kind of jobs are these mothers receiving? What are the wages? Is there child care available for their 3- or 4-year-old? And when their first and second graders come home alone, sometimes in very dangerous neighborhoods, is there anybody there? I have said this on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am going to say it again. We all say how much we love children. These children count, too. There are children--I know, I have been in these neighborhoods-- that go home alone, now, because their mothers are working. They are 7 years old. And they are told to go into their apartment and to lock the door and to take no phone calls, and don't go outside. There are children, when there is beautiful weather, they don't play outside because there is nobody there to take care of them. And these single mothers who are working are terrified as to what might happen to them. I asked my colleagues on the Republican side in the House of Representatives, because they eliminate this amendment, since they are talking about how successful the welfare bill is, could they provide me with data? Not one of them could; not one of them. I will debate anybody on the floor of the Senate, and I will debate anybody on the floor of the House on this question. The Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal once said, ``Ignorance is never random.'' Sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know. We don't know what is going on in these States. We don't know what is going on with these mothers and children. I can't believe how punitive people can be. I can't believe how harsh they can be. Not one single argument was made against this amendment. Not one bit of data was presented to show that these mothers and these children are better off now, but they just eliminated it because they had the majority. I am not whining. I am telling people in the country that this one small example, one small story, tells a larger story about what is at stake. I am not out here, by the way, to defend the President's behavior, but I don't think the President is the issue this fall. He is not on the ballot. He will never be on the ballot again running for President. This election, I say to people in Minnesota and people around the country, is about you. I just ask, what are these kinds of priorities? Just eliminate an amendment to the higher education bill that allows States to allow women, mothers of small children, to complete 2 years of higher education so they and their children will be better off? Eliminated. Do you know that this past June, America--I think it was in June--in the same week this Republican majority voted to give a tax break to people with estates worth more than $17 million, they voted to eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and voted to eliminate summer jobs for kids? Unbelievable. People go to their pollsters and say, ``What are the issues people care about?'' The same Republicans who knocked out this amendment found out it is education--people care about education. They learned how to talk about education--I said ``talk about education''--but they have cut funding for education. They have cut funding for K through 12 education. It is interesting. We are at a crossroads with education. We are going to see a dramatic increase over the next 10 years by about 10 percent of high school students and about 6 percent of middle school students. The average age of our public school teacher is 50. We are going to need to hire about 1.3 million teachers in our country. We can have all sorts of men and women coming into education with creative new ideas, new energy, and all the rest--it is a golden opportunity--but we can't take advantage of a golden opportunity on a tin-plate budget. The same people who are in the majority in the House of Representatives--so punitive, so harsh, so little compassion--voted to deny a single parent, a mother, the opportunity to finish 2 years of higher education so she can do better for her children. They gave a tax break to people with estates worth more than $17 million, but in the same week they eliminated the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program so that in my cold-weather State, elderly people, families with children, have a choice of eating or heating, but not both. They eliminate low-income home energy assistance, so people go cold in the winter, and knock out summer jobs for kids. They give speeches about being for education and children and then cut the budgets. That is what is at stake this election. That is what is at stake. My strategy would be for people to turn out this fall. I think the Republican strategy is for people to be turned off this fall, low turnout. I hope that from this example people in the country will realize that there is a lot at stake. If you care about a good education for all of our children, if you are committed to the idea of living-wage jobs, if you are committed to the idea of decent health care for every citizen, if you are committed to improving the standard of living for all the people in our country, if you believe that economic and educational opportunities are important, then I make this appeal to people in the country: Don't let people turn you off to politics. This election this fall is not about President Clinton. We can talk about his behavior at another time. Nobody needs to approve of it. I don't know of anybody who does. But this election, I say to people in the country, is about you; it is about your families. This election this fall--the President is not on the ballot--is about these kinds of issues. I hope people will turn out. I hope you will vote for education. This amendment was knocked out of the higher education bill in spite of the good support of Senator Jeffords. We supported it on the Senate side. I tell you, this Gingrich-House Republican majority agenda is harsh, it is mean-spirited, and if you are committed to education for children, make sure you vote this election. If you believe in the importance of health care and you think good jobs are important, just make sure you vote this election. If you think it is wrong in the same week in the House of Representatives to give a tax break to people with estates over $17 million and eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and eliminate summer jobs for kids--that is exactly what this majority did in the House--you make sure you vote this election. If you are angry at people in Washington, DC, and the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate because you think that neither party is doing enough about your concerns and you think too much of our decisionmaking is dominated by special interest or big money or you feel locked out or all the rest, make sure you vote. Don't opt out. Don't let people turn you off. There is a lot at stake in elections in our country, and this is but one example. I will get to speak more about this after our caucuses. I see my colleague, Senator Graham. I wanted to start out congratulating my colleagues for the good work on the higher education bill. Roger Wolfson, thank you for your help. I want to tell you that what happened in the conference committee is just outrageous. There is nothing I can do about it, not now. I will bring this amendment back on the first bill I can amend. Of course, for the last couple of weeks there hasn't been an opportunity to amend any bills. I want to make sure people understand what is at stake. In my not too humble opinion--and the Chair is a good friend; I really like him, and I hope it is mutual, so I don't mean this in a personal way--but what is at stake in these fall elections is critical. I say to people in the country, this small story tells a larger story. I shudder at the thought of Speaker Gingrich or, for that matter, on the Senate side as well, there being even more of a majority or more power, because I think it will be an agenda that will move our country back 60 years. People have learned how to talk about education, I say to my colleague from Florida, but the budgets don't reflect that. On the House side, they cut funding for education. There was no action whatsoever on health care. There is very little concern about what I call some really important family-value issues, and this is but one example. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Florida. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield the Senator from Kentucky 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know the time in the Senate for my colleague, Senator Ford, is limited. But I want to say to him, when we received 56 votes for this amendment on the floor of the Senate, in the aftermath of that a lot of people were just thrilled around the country, especially a lot of these mothers and a lot of the higher education community and a lot of States like Kentucky, and others that wanted to allow mothers to complete 2 years of education. I am not naive about this. I don't think we would have ever gotten the 56 votes if not for the voice of Senator Ford. I wish he would not be leaving here. I don't think there is anybody more respected. I know we all come out here on the floor and we say these things about one another. But, you know what, I am sure most of the time it is sincere, but in the case of Senator Ford, when I hear him speak I just wish he wasn't leaving. I think what happened with him and certainly what happened with me is I would travel in Minnesota and I would go to community colleges and maybe speak at a gathering. Maybe there would be a couple of hundred students, the majority of them were women, most of them were older, most of them were going back to school, and a good number of them were single parents. Their plea was: Please, Senator Wellstone, the only thing we are asking is try and let us finish our 2 years here.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the other thing that was interesting, this amendment just allows States to do this if they want to. No State was required to. Any State that thought it would be better for many of these women and children and their families, to allow these women to finish 2 years of education so they get a better job and their children would be better off, would be allowed to do so. I will just say to my colleague from Kentucky, I was there in the conference committee. I think it was punitive for this amendment to be eliminated. I never heard anybody make a credible argument against it, I really didn't. There was not any credible argument made against it. I said here this morning, and I will say it one more time, I think this small story tells the larger story, the same Republican majority in the House, as we look to the elections in the fall, the same Republican majority in the same week in June--one more time, this bears repeating--voted to give a tax break to people with estates worth more than $17 million and at the same time voted to eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and eliminate summer jobs for kids. This is a kind of meanness that I think is just simply not the best for America. I want to say to all of my colleagues, I am going to really miss having Senator Ford with me. The first bill that comes out here, the first vehicle--if it is tomorrow, it is tomorrow; if it is next week, it is next week; if it is after, in January or February--I am going to be coming right back with this amendment again, right back with this amendment again. Because all across our country there are a lot of these women who have just essentially been driven out of school. I cannot believe that is what we are doing. There is not one person I know, just on the basis of common wisdom about this, who doesn't know that a mother and her children are going to be better off if those mothers are allowed to complete 2 years of higher education. So we will be back. We will be back and we will pass this amendment. Mr. President, I, again, will just finish speaking about this amendment if I refer to Latashie Brown, who is a single mother in her thirties from Minnesota. She decided to return to college to enhance her nursing skills and improve her earning power. You have a single mother, she wants to go back to school, it is 2 years to get that associate's degree to go into nursing, to be a nursing assistant. And too many women like Miss Brown are just essentially being told you have to leave school because the States get penalized for not meeting the work requirements. We will be back.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I just say to Senator Baucus, thank you very much.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will conclude my statement by quoting the third to the last paragraph from the commentary of Dr. Calvin, who is a physician and a farmer: Is the future agricultural landscape destined to be one of industrial mega-farms, dotted with a few decorative hobby farms? I hope not. If we are to have an agriculture that is safe, local, environmentally sound and affordable, government must serve as the impartial referee. The difficult debate will be in defining fair rules. The current situation favors the interests of agribusiness. Because of the influence that money has on the political system, change will be difficult. That is true, change will be difficult, but not for a moment, those of us who come from States like Minnesota, do we intend to give up on this fight. The family farm structure of agriculture and food policy is our most precious priority. We have just begun to fight on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?