Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That's correct.

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

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 I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you for that clarification. I also note that several lower courts have recently found that baseball currently enjoys only a narrow exemption from antitrust laws and that this exemption applies only to the reserve system. For example, the Florida Supreme Court in Butterworth v. National League, 644 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1994), the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in Piazza v. Major League Baseball, 831 F. Supp. 420 (E.D. Pa. 1993) and a Minnesota State court in a case involving the Twins have all held the baseball exemption from antitrust laws is now limited only to the reserve system. It is my understanding that S. 53 will have no effect on the courts' ultimate resolution of the scope of the antitrust exemption on matters beyond those related to owner-player relations at the major league level.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, late last night, the Senate passed by unanimous consent S. 53. I have been contacted by the Attorney General of my State, Hubert H. Humphrey III, and asked to try to clarify a technical legal point about the effect of this legislation. The State of Minnesota, through the office of Attorney General, and the Minnesota Twins are currently involved in an antitrust-related investigation. It is my understanding that S. 53 will have no impact on this investigation or any litigation arising out of the investigation.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. I call to my colleagues attention the decision in Minnesota Twins v. State by Humphrey, No. 62-CX-98-568 (Minn. dist. Court, 2d Judicial dist., Ramsey County April 20, 1998) reprinted in 1998-1 Trade Cases (CCH) para.72,136.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to say ``Happy Birthday'' to the Purple Heart. The Purple Heart is the oldest military decoration in the country, and it turns 216 years old on August 7th. The Purple Heart honors combat-wounded veterans who have given their blood for their country. It is the only medal which is earned, not awarded. It is earned by being wounded by an enemy during a hostile action toward the United States or an ally. I want to thank my friend, Jim Wendt of the Purple Heart in Minnesota, for bringing my attention to this important occasion. The Purple Heart was created by George Washington on August 7, 1782, almost 216 years ago, and the first three medals were awarded during the Revolutionary War. On the Purple Heart's 216th birthday, I want to thank Jim and all my friends at the Purple Heart for all their great work. Thank you, and Happy Birthday.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased we are about to pass this important conference report. I look forward to its enactment upon signature by the President, which I hope can occur very soon. It is my understanding that the House is prepared to act on the conference bill during the coming days. I have spoken on numerous occasions regarding the subject. As the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Labor Subcommittee on Employment and Training, I have worked hard with my colleagues Senator DeWine, Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy to help bring us to where we are this evening. I thank them and the many Minnesotans who have worked directly with me and my staff during the months of hearings, preparations, debate and drafting. The conference bill preserves important policy principles contained in the Senate bill. It will help coordinate, streamline and decentralize our federal job training system. At the same time, it will make that system more accountable to real performance measures. It gives private sector employers--the people who have jobs to offer and who need workers with the right skills--a greater role in directing policy at the state and local level, which is where most decision- making power resides in this bill. The bill retains crucial federal priorities, then allows state and local authorities to decide how best to address their needs. And it will move the country to where Minnesota and a number of other states have already moved decisively: to a system of One-Stop service centers where people can get all the information they need in one location. It will replace currently over-bureaucratized systems in many states and localities with systems driven more by the needs of those who utilize them. Adults seeking training will receive Individual Training Accounts to give them direct control over their own careers. High quality labor market information will be accessible through the One-Stops, and training providers will be required to report publicly on their performance. Men and women will have the ability to make their own choices based on the best information about which profession they should pursue, about the skills and training they'll need, and about the best place to get those skills and that training. This week in Minneapolis, concluding today, the U.S. Department of Labor and Minnesota's Department of Economic Security hosted a national conference on One-Stop Workforce centers. It is with some pride that I note that my state has been a real leader in innovation with respect to One-Stops. Minnesota has also been a national leader when it comes to workforce system performance. The conference bill ensures that states such as Minnesota, and the localities within them, can continue to innovate within the new system created. Good-performing service delivery areas will be allowed to continue to perform successfully. The same is true of current collaborative one-stop structures and local workforce boards which currently successfully undertake a range of activities, such as what the bill calls core services and training services. We have intentionally built flexibility into the bill. Veterans will be served both in State-administered training programs and the national veterans workforce investment programs. Veterans also will have a strong role in the policy processes established in the bill. Community-based organizations are assured an appropriate role in setting policy. Labor organizations, too, retain a prominent role. Crucial provisions regarding the federal employment service are protected. Mr. President, it has been a very busy week. I have given longer speeches on this topic in the past and may yet again. For now, I am extremely satisfied with our accomplishment in this bill. I hope we will soon be able to celebrate its enactment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. A month ago. We get this out now, over to the House of Representatives; they take action this week or next week; and then we get the assistance out to farmers. And what I hear on this side is this chorus of ``No,'' and then everyone leaves. With all due respect, it is not that simple. I want the farmers in Minnesota and I want the farmers across the country to know that there was an effort made tonight to get some additional help to people above and beyond these advance payments, which will help only a little. It is a desperate situation. Many people are going to go under over the next several months. There was an effort tonight to get $500 million passed, over to the House, and out to farmers all across the country, especially in those areas that have been hardest hit. And my colleagues on the other side said no. And they are gone. I will be willing to yield in 1 second. I would like to speak a little bit more about this for another 3 minutes. It is not that simple. I will just say to my colleagues on the other side, I see that it is late at night, but I will just say to them, it is not as simple as saying no. You said no to a proposal, to an effort to get assistance to people now. We could have done it. We have done it. I think the Record should be very clear. I want every single farm family in northwest Minnesota that is in desperate shape to know that this proposal was turned down by the Republican Party--unwilling to do it. We were more than willing to help out a little bit with moving forward on the advance payments. No reciprocation or cooperation on the other side in getting the $500 million out to people right now. I don't think it will be very easy to explain to people why we are waiting another month. I don't know whether we should have even left. It is sort of interesting to me, a bitter irony. Now we are gone. We probably shouldn't have gone. We probably shouldn't be going into recess. How do you say to people, well, it will be in a conference committee and we haven't quite got that together and we just didn't want to do it tonight because there are some things that I am not satisfied with as a Senator and I would like to work on that longer? The future is now for people. Time is not neutral. We could have passed something which would have provided $500 million to farmer families that are in real trouble, and we didn't do it. I am embarrassed that we are going into recess. I am embarrassed that the U.S. Senate blocked this. I am embarrassed, specifically, that my Republican colleagues blocked it. I didn't get a chance to talk earlier because the majority leader tried to move things along, said he would recognize two Senators, and the Senator from Georgia was the last Senator. So now I get to speak. I think it is just outrageous. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let the Record show I am speaking for myself, but let the Record show that there was no objection to moving forward on advance payments for this ``freedom to fail'' bill, which is just an admission what an awful piece of legislation it was on our side. In addition, we could have gotten a $500 million indemnity payment out to farmers. People are asking, when are we going to see this assistance? People are thinking about a lifetime of 2 months or 3 months. I hear this discussion that we need to take a broader view, it needs to go over to the House, and we need to work it in conference committee, and we haven't had a chance to meet yet in conference committee. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds to the people whom we represent? Mr. President, I will just say I don't think it is just that simple. Obviously, I am not going to change the course of events tonight. My colleague from Iowa came out here earlier and spoke about this. First, the minority leader asked whether or not we also could have unanimous consent to get this indemnity payment out to the countryside, out to families in rural America. Then the Senator from Iowa spoke about it. Then the Senator from North Dakota comes to the floor, after we have agreed to go forward--fast forward the advance payments was just fine with this Freedom to Farm bill. And now we come out and the Senator from North Dakota asks unanimous consent that we get the $500 million--when did we pass that? I ask my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not object. I would also like to thank the majority leader for his cooperation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, have you eliminated time on debate? I am not quite sure.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, as I understand what the Senator from Alaska--

Mr. WELLSTONE. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand. But there is no limit on debate on the individual amendments; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as I understand the unanimous consent request, what the Senator is saying is that after disposal of the last amendment, we go right to final passage; is that correct? But there is no limit on debate on amendments; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I am pleased to debate it if you want, but you just let me know.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I am ready to debate it if you want to, but let me know.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder whether I could ask my colleague from Alaska whether he could include the child soldiers amendment in the managers' package since it has been accepted?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes, because I know my colleague wants to move forward. Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii is the best of the best Senators. I don't like to be in disagreement with him. I am certainly not in disagreement with his analysis about our own history. There is nobody who can speak with more eloquence and more integrity about injustices in our country toward minorities and violations of people's human rights than the Senator from Hawaii. There is no question about it. But I also believe, as my colleague from Arkansas has ably pointed out, that it is also important for other countries, and it would have been an important relation for our country to speak out. When I think about South Africa, I think about what President Mandela said. One of the things he said over and over again, was when the people in the United States took action, it was when we put the pressure--not just symbolic politics--that things began to break open, and finally we were able to end the awful system of subjugation of people because of the color of their skin. When I think even about our relations with the former Soviet Union, we were tough on these human rights violations. I really believe that this amendment is just a very modest beginning which says, look, when you have people who are directly guilty of religious persecution, and when you have people who are directly guilty of forced sterilization, forced abortion--and we even had waivers for the Presidents. But what we are saying is then let's take this into account. They ought not to be given travel visas to our country. This is moderate, I say to my colleagues. This is but a step forward. But it sends such a powerful and important message about what our values are all about, what we are about as a nation. And it supports the people in China. This really is an important amendment. I hope that our colleagues will vote for it and will give it overwhelming support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think my colleague from Arkansas will agree with me, it would be important, given this topic, given this debate, given this discussion, to mention Aung San Suu Kyi from Burma, a woman who just wanted to go to a meeting. That repressive junta Government would not let her do so. She spent 5 days in her car, refusing to leave, before she could go to this meeting. She never could get to the meeting. Now she is back safely at home. It reminds us, again, of the repression of this regime. I hope that these junta leaders understand that all of us in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, abhor their actions. From my point of view, we can't do enough as a country to isolate that repressive Government. The core value that brings my colleague from Arkansas and the Senator from Minnesota together here today is freedom in human rights. I think that there is no better way to speak to this than to examine our relationship with the Government and 1.2 billion people in China. I am concerned that the administration's ``carrots only'' policy has not worked well enough when it comes to accomplishing this goal of promoting freedom in human rights. I believe that the limited steps that the Chinese Government has taken to lessen political persecution or religious persecution has been when there has been American pressure. These included the prospect of a human rights resolution on China at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and the debate over annual MFN renewal. All of this has been important in communicating a strong statement to this Government that they are under our watchful eye, and that we speak out against persecution against people because of the practice of their religion or of their basic political viewpoint. I had reservations, I have reservations about the June summit between the President and President Jiang Zemin. I had hoped that there would be concrete results. I always believed it would have been better if the President had laid out clear human rights preconditions before visiting China. Having said that, I was still very hopeful that this visit would make a difference. I applauded the President speaking out while in China. But always the question was, what next? Will China now take realistic but meaningful steps, such as opening up Tibet to human rights monitors and foreign journalists? Will China release political prisoners? Will they put safeguards in place for the right of free association of workers, beginning a process of abolishing the arbitrary system of reduction through labor? Will they lift their official blacklist of prodemocracy activists now abroad who can't return to China? I fear that what we have seen so far by way of agreements announced in Beijing are merely symbolic in nature. On Tuesday, Secretary Albright reported that Chinese dissidents are continuing to be rounded up. For example, last Wednesday the police arrested Zhang Shanguang, a prominent dissident, who had already spent 7 years in jail. What did he do? What was his crime? He tried to organize laid off workers. Also last week, a Chinese court sentenced another dissident to 3 years in prison for helping a fellow activist to escape from China. Mr. President, I am all for having good relations with the Government. I am all for making sure that we have economic cooperation. I understand the market that is there. But I join with my colleague, Senator Hutchinson, in introducing this amendment, to say that whatever we do by way of our relations with China, we ought not to sacrifice a basic principle that we hold dear as a country, which is a respect for human rights and for human freedom of peoples. This amendment started out to do three things. One will be taken care of in an amendment by my colleague, Senator Abraham, which will increase the number of U.N. diplomats at the Bejing Embassy assigned to monitor human rights and add at least one human rights monitor to each U.S. consulate in this vast country. That is an important amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it. The second point I want to make is that our amendment is divided into two parts. First, our amendment will demonstrate our commitment to religious freedom by banning travel to the United States by any Chinese official who has engaged in religious persecution. While membership in religious groups is increasing explosively in China, the Government continues to prosecute, continues to persecute, Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan Buddhists and Christians. While harsh prison sentences and violence against religious activists still occur, state control increasingly takes the form of a registration process. This is the way the Government monitors the membership in religious organizations. According to the State Department's reports, Chinese officials have conducted a special campaign against all unauthorized religious activities by Christians. This included police detaining people, beating, and fining members of the underground Catholic Church in Jiangxi Province, and raiding the homes of bishops. That is what is happening in this country. The Government has also carried out a major purge of local officials in certain heavily Muslim populated areas, and targeted again ``underground'' Muslim activities. The Government has banned the construction or renovation of 130 mosques, and arrested scores of Muslim dissidents. In Tibet, human rights conditions remain grim, and have gotten worse this past year. Tibetan religious activists face ``disappearance,'' or incommunicado detention, long prison sentences, and brutal treatment in custody. Finally, this amendment, second part, demonstrates the abhorrence of the United States over the practice of forced abortion and sterilization. It targets officials involved in forcing Chinese women to undergo abortions and sterilization and bans their travel to the United States of America. Chinese population control officials, working with employers and work unit officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles. They subject women who conceive without Government authorization to extreme psychological pressure, to harsh economic sanctions, including unpayable fines--in one province, twice a family's gross annual income--to loss of employment, and in some cases to the use of physical force. Some people argue that we cannot influence China, that the country is too large, too proud, and that change takes too long. I disagree. Religious prosecution, religious persecution, forced sterilization, forced abortion, people trying to speak out on behalf of their own human rights, all of these citizens have thanked us for speaking out; all of the human rights advocates have thanked us for helping to keep them alive by focusing attention on their plight and for fighting for reforms. We cannot give up. We must continue to pressure China on these urgent matters. I urge my colleagues to vote for this very reasonable amendment, and I think Senator Hutchinson sends a very compelling and very powerful message, not only to the Government that we will not in any way, shape, or form stand by idly and be silent about this kind of repression, but also to the people in China, the citizens, that we support their efforts on behalf of human rights, on behalf of their right to be able to practice their own religion, on behalf of their right to be free from forced abortion and forced sterilization. Colleagues, please give this amendment your overwhelming support. I yield the floor. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I am very proud to join with my colleague, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, in offering this amendment. Let me say, second of all, that while we do not agree on all issues--that may be the understatement of the year--we do have a common bond in our very strongly held views and, I think, passion when it comes to human freedom in our country and other countries and respect for human rights. At the beginning, I would like to just start out by doing two other things before speaking right to the amendment. Privilege Of The Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Linn Schulte-Sasse, who is an intern with our office, be allowed to be on the floor during the debate on this appropriations bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the Fair Labor Organizing Act, to strengthen the basic rights of workers freely to associate, organize and to join a union. The bill would address significant shortcomings in the National Labor Relations Act. These shortcomings amount to impediments to one of the most fundamental ways that working people can seek to improve their own and their families' standard of living and quality of life, which is to join, belong to and participate in a union. Mr. President, in the past few years, working men and women across the country have been fighting and organizing with a new energy. They are fighting for better health care, pensions, a living wage, better education policy and fairer trade policy. They also are fighting and organizing to ensure that they have the opportunity to be represented by a union through which they can collectively bargain with their employers. Much of this organizing is taking place among sectors of the workforce, and among portions of our working population, that have not previously been organized. I think these new efforts are part of what really is a new civil rights and human rights struggle in our country. It is an important and positive historical development. There is probably no clearer indication that the impact of this development is being felt, and that many of these efforts are succeeding, than some of the attacks in the current Congress on unions representing the country's working people. Why have we seen so many bills with Orwellian titles such as the TEAM Act, which has little to do with employer-employee teamwork and a lot more to do with company-dominated labor organizations? Such as the ``Family Friendly Workplace Act,'' which really isn't family friendly, but would reduce working families' pay and undercut the 40-hour workweek? Such as the so-called SAFE Act, which doesn't promote safety but actually would roll back well-established and necessary OSHA protections? Why does the majority in Congress seem so desperate to single out unions to suppress their political activities at the same time they maneuver to kill genuine political campaign finance reform? It is because unions are succeeding. That is a good thing because in my view, when organized labor fights for job security, for dignity, justice and for a fair share of America's prosperity, it is not a struggle merely for their own benefit. The gains of unionized workers on basic bread and butter issues are key to the economic security of all working families. How can it be that as many as 10,000 Americans lose their jobs each year for supporting union organizing when the National Labor Relations Act already supposedly prohibits the firing of an employee to deny his or her right to freely organize or join a union? If more than four in 10 workers who are not currently in a union say they would join one if they had the opportunity, why aren't there more opportunities? Since we know that union workers earn up to one-third more than non-union workers and are more likely to have pensions and health benefits, why aren't more workers unionized when the new labor movement is correctly focused on organizing? The answer to these basic questions is this: we need labor law reform. We need to improve the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Fair Labor Organizing Act would achieve three basic goals. First, it would help employees make fully informed, free decisions about union representation. Second, it would expand the remedies available to wrongfully discharged employees. Third, it would require mediation and arbitration when employers and employees fail to reach a collective bargaining agreement on their own. It is late in the current Congress. My bill may not receive full consideration or be enacted into law this year. But I believe it is important to set a standard and place a marker. Workers across America are fighting for their rights, and many are finding that the playing field is tilted against them. The NLRA does not fully allow them fair opportunity to speak freely, to associate, organize and join a union, even though that is its intended purpose. I have walked some picket lines during the past two years. I have joined in solidarity with workers seeking to organize. I have called on employers to bargain in good faith with their employees during disputes. I intend to continue doing so, and I urge colleagues to do the same. At the same time, it is clear to nearly any organizer and to many workers who have sought to join a union that the rules in crucial ways are stacked against them. My bill seeks to address that fact. First, it is a central tenet of U.S. labor policy that employees should be free to make informed and free decisions about union representation. Yet, union organizers have limited access to employees while employers have unfettered access. Employers have daily contact with employees. They may distribute written materials about unions. They may require employees to attend meetings where they present their views on union representation. They may talk to employees one-on-one about how they view union representation. On the other hand, union organizers are restricted from worksites and even public areas. If we want people to make independent, informed decisions about whether they should be represented by a union, then we have to give them equal access to both sides of the story. This bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide equal time to labor organizations to provide information about union representation. Equal time. That means that an employer would trigger the equal time provision that this bill would insert into the NLRA by expressing opinions on union representation during work hours or at the worksite. The provision would give a union equal time to use the same media used by the employer to distribute information, and would allow the union access to the worksite to communicate with employees. The second reform in the bill would toughen penalties for wrongful discharge violations. It would require the National Labor Relations Board to award back pay equal to 3 times the employee's wages when the Board finds that an employee is discharged as a result of an unfair labor practice. It also would allow employees to file civil actions to recover punitive damages when they have been discharged as a result of an unfair labor practice. Third, the bill would put in place mediation and arbitration procedures to help employers and employees reach mutually agreeable first-contract collective bargaining agreements. It would require mediation if the parties cannot reach agreement on their own after 60 days. Should the parties not reach agreement 30 days after a mediator is selected, then either party could call in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for binding arbitration. I believe that this proposal represents a balanced solution--one that would help both parties reach agreements they can live with. It gives both parties incentive to reach genuine agreement without allowing either side to indefinitely hold the other hostage to unrealistic proposals. Mr. President, this bill would be a step toward fairness for working families in America. The proposals are not new. I hope my colleagues will support the bill.