Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can I ask the whip one question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Then Tuesday we will have time for final debate as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not take more than about 10 minutes. I said to my colleague from Oklahoma as he left, I wanted to respond to his comments. There will be more time for discussion later. What is at issue, the Senator from Oklahoma does not agree with the heart of the trade adjustment assistance package, and he has been clear about this. He does not like the fact that with the trade adjustment assistance we are now going to help people who are out of work, cover health care costs. People were saying: We are out of work. The COBRA monthly payments could be $700, maybe $900 a month, and they cannot afford it, they are out of work. I heard the Republican whip say this was like the road to socialism. The ideological objection is in the trade adjustment package we are actually going to provide some help for people to be able to afford health care costs. That is a good part of his indignation. He goes on to say we are extending it to steelworkers. That is true. We are talking about people who have bled for an industry and have been abandoned by trade policies for the last 30 years, including the taconite workers on the Iron Range. This small, modest amendment says, for 1 year, let's include these retired workers, whose companies, such as LTV, have declared bankruptcy as a result of Government abandonment and neglect, and who are now under very hard times through no fault of their own. We should at least for 1 year pick up the health care benefits of the retirees because the companies have walked away. There is a window, all together, 4 years to pick up, if other companies go under; a 1-year bridge for people who are terrified they now are going to incur all the health care costs that they never dreamed they would ever be faced with as they planned the later years of their life. My colleague has trouble with the numbers. Last week, the administration came out and said it would be $800 million in 1 year, and now we have, from the Joint Tax Committee, $180 million over 10 years. My colleague from Oklahoma says: Why should we be spending this kind of money? We are helping people. This is the road to socialism. We are helping people. If we help these people, there might be other help for other people on health care benefits. Maybe someday we will have universal health care coverage, health security for all. Most citizens in the country want that. I say one thing to the Senator from Oklahoma--and I am sure we will pick up on this debate tomorrow--any day of the year I will stake my political reputation, being a Senator from Minnesota on $180 million over 10 years to help steelworker retirees, people who have given a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to our country over $108 billion--I didn't say $180 million--$108 billion to do away with the estate tax, with the vast majority of the dollars going to millionaires. Those are the priorities we have here. I hear my colleague say: By gosh, we don't have the money. We are running into budget problems and the question of the deficit. Vote for tax cuts; Robin Hood in reverse; 40, 50 percent to the top 1 percent, and then eliminate the alternative minimum tax; more loopholes for multinationals. On the House side, do an energy bill of $32 billion; about two-thirds of the benefits going to energy companies, oil companies, that made $40 billion in profits; then talk about completely doing away with the estate tax. Give it all away. Then bleed the economy further of another $400, $500 or $600 billion over the second 10 years and then say: We don't have the money. We can't possibly help people who are out of work. We can't help the retired taconite workers. We can't help people who do not have any health care coverage. We can't help senior citizens on prescription drug benefits. I heard my colleague say we should do that together. Yes, we should. But you watch and see what it is going to be. What I hear so far coming from Republicans is: We will help only those who are low income; we will not help the other 75 percent of senior citizens; and/or: The premiums will be too high, or the copays will be too high, or the deductibles will be too high, or it will not be catastrophic coverage. And they will say we cannot afford to do it and we cannot afford to provide help for education for our schools, for our kids in Minnesota or anywhere in the country. Each time, it is the same argument: We do not have the money. Here is what is going on tonight. You basically do tax cuts so you don't have the resources, and then you come out and say we don't have any money. Then you come out and say you are opposed to this because it is the road to socialism because you don't like the trade adjustment assistance package because it provides some help for people who are out of work so they can afford health care coverage. The most terrifying thing for people when they are out of work, next to losing the job, is they know, depending on their seniority, in 6 months or a year they are not going to have any health care coverage. That is one of the best things to this bill. We come up with a small amendment saying we represent steelworkers, taconite workers, and we have this crisis, and we have this industry that has been torn asunder as a result of horrible, horrendous trade policies. People who bled for the industry, bled for the country, worked hard all their lives, now are terrified. They never thought these companies would declare bankruptcy and walk away from them. Can't we provide them with some help for 1 year? You would think, from listening to my colleague from Oklahoma, this is just about the most irresponsible, horrible thing that could ever be done on the floor of the Senate. I disagree. I think it is a good thing to help hard-working people. I think it is a good thing to help families. I think it is a good thing to help retirees who now no longer have their health care benefits because the steel companies, the LTVs of this world, have declared bankruptcy and have walked away from them. I think it is a good thing to have trade adjustment assistance. I think it is a good thing that it is more generous. I think it is a good thing to help people who are flat on their backs through no fault of their own, not because they are slackers or lazy or don't want to work--just the opposite. I think it is a really good thing. I think this should be what our priorities are about. I think it is all about values. I think it is all about helping people. So I beg to disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma. He has a passion for his point of view. I have passion for my point of view. He argues his case well. I give him full credit. I think it is important that people do that. But any day of the year--any day of the year--I would rather be out here for taconite workers on the Iron Range, as would the Presiding Officer, Senator Dayton. Any day in the year, I would rather be out here talking about health care benefits and prescription drug benefits, affordable housing, education--and, yes, we have a difference of opinion. I am sorry my colleague from Oklahoma is not here right now. We will debate it more. I will never say this in a shrill way. I think my colleague from Oklahoma--listening to what he said--states his ideological position. And I don't mean that in a bad way. That is to say he has a set of beliefs which basically say that when it comes to many pressing issues of people's lives, there is not much that government can or should do. I think that is what his position is. That is not my position. I think this philosophy when it comes to the most pressing issues of people's lives--and we are talking about a very pressing issue for retired taconite workers on the Iron Range, and for retired steelworkers, that there is nothing the Government can or should do--I think it works well when you own your own large corporation and when you are wealthy, but it does not work well for the majority of people in the country. So I think it is a very good thing we are doing here. I hope we will get support against what is an effort to filibuster this amendment. Again, I finish tonight because we are going to debate on another bill and this amendment will be out here until Tuesday. Frankly, steelworkers, I will tell you what. Union people, workers, other neighbors, families, hard-working people, people who believe that something ought to be done to help people who are really hurting right now, you are going to need to be in touch with Senators because right now we have a majority of votes but they are filibustering this amendment. They do not want this amendment to pass. I think in the next several days there will be a very important debate, and I hope we will have strong support from our colleagues. I am delighted there are Republican Senators who are supporting this amendment. Frankly, I think--I hope and pray--almost every single Democratic is supporting this amendment. I think it is very consistent with what Democrats believe. Maybe that is what this debate is about. Maybe it is just a good, honest difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans. We believe there is a role for government to provide help for people. We believe it is a good thing to do. Government can play a positive role. This is 1 year, and, God knows, Senator Mikulski was saying we have an identification and connection to people here and we are not going to let up on it. So I have spoken my piece in response to what the Senator from Oklahoma said. I know there will be more debate and discussion. I know there are Republicans who support this amendment. We are dealing with a filibuster in an effort to block this. We have a majority vote, Senator Mikulski, I believe, but now we have to continue to work hard, and I think working families all across the country are going to have to be heard from over the next several days. I believe that will help. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both Senators. I say to the majority whip, Senator Reid, that the thing I like best about his comments--and I appreciated them all--is that I, too, think we can get to 60. That is now what we have to do because there is an effort to filibuster this bill. But we are going to do everything we can. There are a lot of working families who are going to be heard from over the next several days. And that is what we are going to do. I appreciate so much what he said. We have the majority. Now we have to deal with an effort to block this with a filibuster. There will be more debate and more discussion. Believe me, this is going to go on for some time. I know we are going to move on to other important legislation for tonight. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Commending the Presiding Officer

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer to the fast-track portion of the substitute, will enable us to get a better and more accurate assessment of the true impact of trade agreements as they affect the job security of America's working families. In particular, what this amendment does is clarify the scope of the labor impact assessment called for in the underlying fast-track bill. What we say is that the full assessment should be an assessment on the impact of job security, the level of compensation of new jobs and existing jobs, the displacement of employees, and the regional distribution of employment. Let me explain each of these one by one. First, the impact of the trade agreement. With this important impact statement being made available to Members of Congress, to the Finance Committee, to the Ways and Means Committee, and, more importantly, I would argue, to the public, it has an impact on job security. What we now know, on the basis of some very good work by economists, is that when one has a trade agreement and a company leaves, it is not only a question of whether or not there are now fewer jobs by definition in our own country; it is also a question of the overall impact trade deficits have on our economic performance in our country and what kinds of jobs are generated. It is also true that when companies end up leaving and saying, listen, we are going to go to Juarez, or Taiwan, or wherever, because we can pay 50 cents an hour, or we can have children we can employ for 18 or 19 hours a day with pretty horrible child labor conditions, what also happens is that workers in our country are put in a really weak position vis-a-vis bargaining so that quite often they then settle for lower wages, less by way of health care coverage, and all the rest, because companies say, if they demand this, we are leaving. What this amendment says is let us have really a good economic impact analysis and let us look also at the impact of these trade agreements on not only job security, which in and of itself is really important, but also the level of compensation, and then the whole question of displacement of employment and regional distribution. It could be and may be that Senators want to make an argument that overall these trade agreements benefit our economy in the aggregate and benefit our Nation as a whole. I think that is always open for debate, and people of good faith can reach different conclusions about it, but what we also need to understand is what regions of the country are most devastated, what sectors of the economy are most devastated, and what happens to those industrial workers, be it textile workers in the South, be it steelworkers, be it taconite workers on the Iron Range of Minnesota. What this amendment does is clarify. It also calls for an examination of previous trade agreements and says we ought to take into account a variety of different economic models: Let us look at NAFTA as it would affect future trade agreements, let us look at the different kinds of economic models we can employ to do the most rigorous assessment; and then, after we do these assessments, let us make sure this is made available to the public. What we do not want is a whitewash analysis. What we do want is a real analysis so we can know what kind of impacts to expect from particular trade agreements. I think it is actually an amendment that adds to the strength of the bill. My colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, certainly have tried to move in this direction, and I appreciate their work. This builds on their work. I would quote again the Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal, who said ignorance is never random. My translation of that is: We do not know what we do not want to know. All this amendment says is let us do a rigorous analysis of what the impact of these trade agreements is on the lives of many families we represent. There can be no doubt about some of the adverse effects of so-called globalization and our trade relationships on jobs and job security in our country. In my home State of Minnesota, unfortunately, examples abound. The impact of the steel imports on the Range--other Senators from steel States, Democrats and Republicans, can present their own data--but as I look at the sort of import surge of semifinished slab steel and its impact on the taconite industry, all I have to do is look at 1,400 LTV workers now out of work. In greater Minnesota, or in rural America, when someone has a job that pays $50,000 to $60,000 a year, with good health care benefits, it is not at all clear what happens to those families. Those jobs are hard to find. They are hard to find outside metro areas. The most poignant thing of all is that not only have these workers lost their jobs but now, depending upon their seniority, after 6 months, a year, they are losing their health care benefits as well. Tomorrow there will be an amendment offered by Senator Rockefeller, Senator Mikulski, and myself, and what is especially poignant about this is that these retirees who have worked hard all their lives now find, as these companies declare bankruptcy, that these companies walk away from retiree health care benefits. They are terrified about what they will do now. We are very hopeful we will get strong support on the Senate floor tomorrow for an amendment that at least will provide a 1-year bridge at minimal cost toward maintaining coverage for the retirees. Then, of course, we have to come to terms with what we intend to do in the long run in the future for the retirees and for the steel industry. More about that amendment tomorrow. Potlach shut down in Minnesota. Senator Dayton and I met with the workers in the Brainerd area. It is never easy when grown men and women have tears in their eyes. These were good-paying jobs, hard-working people. I talked to the CEO of Potlach. He told me outright, Senator Wellstone, we can compete with any company in the United States of America but it is the trade policy that has simply done us in. We have no other choice. The results have been devastating for the workers. I spoke yesterday to machinists and aerospace workers. They don't understand why so many jobs are farmed out. Northwest Airlines in our State is an example. The jobs are farmed out to repair shops in other developing countries that do not have to live up to the same standards as the repair shops in our country. We may want to have high standards for all the repair shops. I may have an amendment on this bill that speaks to the specific question of safety for airline passengers. We have heard of the difficulties from workers all across our country: auto workers, textile workers, steelworkers. Looking at NAFTA, there is a direct link between the NAFTA trade agreement and trade adjustment assistance. I have three pages of companies and workers who have lost their jobs in the State of Minnesota. It is quite unbelievable. For the families, it is devastating. There have been all sorts of promises made about the great benefits that would flow from NAFTA and from granting permanent trade relations with China. They have not panned out. As I mentioned before, the studies on NAFTA have estimated we have lost about 766,000 actual and potential U.S. jobs between 1994 and 2000 because of the rapid growth in the trade deficit with Mexico and Canada. Canada increased from $17 billion to $53 billion; our trade deficit with Mexico doubled from $14.5 billion to $30 billion. I congratulate my colleague from Minnesota for his amendment which said we are not going to give up our right to review trade remedy legislation which is so important to making sure that working families in our country are not put in an awful situation when other countries engage in illegal trade practices and we begin to lose our jobs. That amendment that Senator Dayton and Senator Craig passed yesterday was an extremely important amendment. Make no mistake, the job losses are real. These are workers who have actually been certified as eligible for trade adjustment assistance under NAFTA. That means there is an official finding regarding these workers in the State of Minnesota, these three pages of lists of workers. There was an official finding that they lost their jobs because of trade covered under the NAFTA agreement. A few examples: Cummins, located in St. Peter, MN, which made power supplies, estimates the loss of jobs at 350 because of NAFTA imports. That is a lot of jobs for the town of St. Peter, MN. Hampshire Designers, located in La Crescent and Winona, MN, knit sweaters. The estimated loss is 150 jobs because the plant moved to Mexico. Hearth Technologies located in Savage, MN, produced prefab fireplaces. The estimated loss of jobs is 160 because the operation moved to Canada. There is an excellent groundbreaking study by Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner at Cornell University, prepared for the U.S. China Security Review Commission and the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission which took a detailed look at the impact of United States-China trade relations on workers, wages, and employment in the United States. That is what this amendment says. We want that analysis on these trade agreements, and we want it made public before a final agreement is signed. This was a pilot media tracking study that Dr. Bronfenbrenner did at Cornell, an indepth analysis of production shifts out of the United States since the enactment of the permanent normal trade relations legislation. Frankly, colleagues, it is a sad state of affairs and exemplifies the need for this amendment that this pilot study was even necessary. As the authors point out, there is no government data in this area. I want to make sure we have the data so we can be responsible policymakers. Indeed, the database developed in this pilot is the only national database on production shifts out of the United States. Let me give colleagues a feel for some of the conclusions. In the few months, between October 1, 2000, after enactment of PNTR legislation, and April 20, 2001, more than 80 corporations between October and April announced their intentions to shift production to China. With the number of announced production shifts increasing each month, from 2 per month in October to November to 19 per month by April, the estimated number of jobs lost through these production shifts to China was as high as 34,500. Unfortunately, because this data is not regularly tracked, and hence the need for the amendment, we can only speculate the trend has worsened. The study also showed that the production shifts out of the United States into China are highly concentrated in certain industries. Let me give some examples of the electronics and electrical equipment, chemicals and petroleum products, household goods--toys, textiles, plastics, sporting goods, wood, and paper products. The U.S. companies are shutting down and moving to China and other countries. These tend to be the large, profitable, well-established companies, primarily subsidiaries of publicly held U.S.-based multinationals: Mattel, International Paper, General Electric, Motorola, Rubbermaid. These multinationals are not shifting production to China to serve a Chinese market. Their goal is to still serve the United States and a global market. Perhaps even more important, of the jobs moving to China, increasingly, they are the jobs in high-paying industries, for example, producing goods such as bicycles, furniture, motors, compressors, fiber optics, injection molding, and computer components. I hope all Senators read a front page story yesterday in the Washington Post about a 20-year-old woman in China who lived in the most rural part of China. She came to one of the industrial cities to work for one of the subsidiaries producing toys. She was working many days in a row, day after day after day, 18, 19 hours a day, well until 10, 11, 12 o'clock at night, from early in the morning. She felt ill and was not allowed a break. She became sick, threw up blood, and died. There are working conditions like this all over the world--deplorable child labor conditions, with violations of people's human rights, trade agreements with governments that systematically torture their citizens. And we don't consider any of this? That is one of the reasons I am sorry to say these companies must leave the United States of America. They say to our wage earners: Listen, you who want to make a living wage and you want to have health care benefits and you want to be able to support your family, we don't need to pay attention to you any longer. We will go to China. We will go to other countries. We will go to countries where if people try to organize and bargain collectively and join a union, they will find themselves tortured or find themselves in prison. It happens all the time. Or we will go to countries where there are no labor standards and as a result, we lose these jobs. Our families are the ones who pay the price. Then, if other nations should say we want to have some child labor standards, these companies say: We will not go to your nation. We will go someplace where we don't have to deal with any of that. Then, what makes me most angry is that working families, working people in the United States of America who dare to raise the question as to whether or not these trade agreements or this fast-track bill is exactly in their interest or their children's interests, are called protectionists. Then the argument is made: You terrible labor unions. You don't care about the poor in these other nations. This helps them obtain employment. I will tell you something. I have been to some of these trade conferences, and I have never seen any of the poor represented by these countries. I see their trade ministers. I never see the poor there. What we have going on here is a race to the bottom. It is time we think about this new international economy and how we can make sure this new international economy doesn't just work for multinationals but works for working people or works for the environment or works for human rights. Let me conclude the study's conclusion. The employment effects of these production shifts go well beyond the individual workers whose jobs were lost. Each time another company shuts down operations and moves work to China, Mexico, or any other country, it has a ripple effect on the wages of every other worker in that industry and that community, through lowering wage demands, restraining union organizing and bargaining power, reducing the tax base, and reducing or eliminating hundreds of jobs in the related contracting, transportation, wholesale trade, professional, and service-sector employment in companies and businesses. Finally, the study notes that the employment effects of United States-China trade relations are not felt in the United States alone. Data points to massive shifts of employment around the world. As Dr. Bronfenbrenner's study notes: Contrary to the promise of rising wages and living standards that free trade and global economic integration were supposed to provide, in many countries these global production shifts have led to decreases in employment, stagnating wages, and increasing income inequality. These conclusions were also echoed in a report presented by the U.S. Business and Industry Council Education Fund, ``Exporting Jobs: When Trade Agreements Are Really Investment Agreements.'' What this study points to is to a trend of low-income countries such as Mexico and China becoming sources of high-tech products for the United States. Import levels increasingly have swamped exports which are increasingly concentrated in the high-value industries, with the result that we even lose more. Here is the problem. It is not just that we are losing low-value products produced by low-wage workers, we are now losing the higher- value products produced by skilled labor that goes to other countries where these companies pay much less, do not have to abide by any standards dealing with labor, don't have to abide by any human rights standards, don't have to abide by any democracy standards, don't have to abide by any environmental standards. What this says is let's take a close look. We need to understand exactly how this affects the people we represent. A USBIC report, and numerous studies, including one published by the Federal Reserve Board of New York, made clear that most Chinese imports consist of imports that are turned into exports. Since 1997, our trade deficit with China has mushroomed from $49.7 billion to $83 billion. Contrary to the promise of how this was supposed to help so many working families in our country, this is great for the multinational companies involved, but it does not help most of our small businesses, and it doesn't help most of our workers. Make no mistake, this amendment is not about being opposed to trade agreements. This is not about protectionism. I do not have the slightest interest in building walls at our borders or keeping out goods and services, nor do I fear fair competition from workers and companies operating in other countries. I am not afraid of our neighbors. I do not fear other countries, nor do I fear other peoples. I favor open trade, and I believe the President should negotiate trade agreements which lead generally to more open markets here and abroad. I am aware of the benefits of trade for the economy of Minnesota and the economy of our country. In Minnesota, we have an extremely internationally minded community of corporations, small businesses, working people, and farmers. Open trade can contribute significantly to expansion of wealth and opportunity, and it can reward innovation and productivity. Negotiated properly, trade agreements can bring all these benefits to trading partners in a fair way. The question is, How do American values around protecting labor rights, the environment, food safety, and consumer protections figure into our trade agreements? And what are the true costs of not respecting these values? The Bush administration believes commercial property rights are primary in trade agreements but that labor and environmental and human rights are secondary. I think this is wrong. I think--and I think most Americans agree with me--that fundamental standard of living and quality of life issues are exactly what trade policy should be about. Trade agreements that do not respect the universality of these issues or these values undermine human dignity around the world, and they hurt American workers in the process. If we fail to document the extent of the impact of American workers and American jobs, then we have done a real disservice to our own Nation. So before we enter into additional trade agreements, we simply have to have better data and a more sophisticated analysis of the full employment impacts of these trade agreements: Loss of jobs but also wage levels, ability to organize, impact on regions in-country, impact on sectors of the economy. We need to know the impact of the agreement on job security, level of compensation of new and existing jobs, displacement of employment, and the regional distribution of employment. That is the purpose of this amendment. It is a pretty simple amendment. Frankly, I would be surprised if my colleagues did not accept it, although I am pleased to debate it as well. This is a labor impact amendment. I hope there will be strong support for it. I also say to Senators while I am out on the floor--and I know there are other Senators who want to speak--that this is the first amendment I have which is to improve the labor assessment impacts of trade agreements. Both my colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, start down this direction. This is just a fuller analysis. We ought to know the impact on job security. We ought to know the impact on the level of compensation of jobs. We ought to know what the displacement effects of unemployment are. We ought to know what the regional distribution of employment will be. And we ought to look at prior trade agreements and come up with the best models of assessment. That is what I am saying. We need to be honest and rigorous in our analysis. I also will have another amendment which will call upon us to assure the consideration of democracy and human rights in trade agreements. Believe me, I think it is vitally important that fast-track trade negotiating authority for any trade agreement must have a specific democracy and human rights clause. Let me just mention one other amendment. The other amendment I will be introducing is an amendment regarding the contracting for Federal services overseas. What this amendment with Senator Feingold says is that right now, State authorities--too many--use TANF to administer electronic benefits programs. Right now what they are doing is they are doing business with companies that contract this abroad. It is kind of an irony. This is the welfare reform. Actually, some of these mothers could take these jobs. So it seems to me, the TANF money itself should not be used to support companies that are subcontracting with companies that then basically do all the electronic work, so if you are a welfare mother and you are calling and trying to find out where you are, where there is job training, basically you are talking to somebody in India. It strikes me that this is a bitter irony, especially when some of the jobs could actually be available for these mothers and other families. So this amendment would prohibit the use of any part of a TANF grant to enter into a contract with an entity that employs workers located outside the United States to carry out the activities under the contract. I think that would be an interesting debate. I hope to have support for it. I want to say, while my colleagues are out on the floor, the heart and soul amendment is the one--they are all important--that deals with the steelworkers and a small amount of money. I know we have a Joint Tax Committee estimate where we can help at least with a 1-year bridge for the retiree health care benefits. This will be with Senators Rockefeller, Mikulski, and I know other Senators joining in as well. I want to, before relinquishing my right to the floor, speak on the democracy and human rights amendment, which my guess is will be somewhat controversial. The reason for this is-- just look at this, just listen to this. This is from our own ``State Department Country Reports on Human Rights for 2001.'' For China: Police and other elements of the security apparatus employ torture and degrading treatment in dealing with some detainees and prisoners. This is the State Department report, not my report: Senior officials acknowledge that torture and coerced confessions are chronic problems. Former detainees and the press reported credibly that officials used electric shocks, prolonged periods of solitary confinement. And the list goes on and on. Russia--I know we are establishing better relations with Russia--but for Russia: There are credible reports that some law enforcement officials used torture regularly to coerce confessions from suspects, and that the government does not hold most officials accountable. Torture usually takes one of four forms: beatings with fists, batons, or other object; asphyxiation using gas masks or bags--sometimes filled with mace--electric shocks; or suspension of body parts. Colombia: According to the ``Amnesty International Annual Report for 2001'': More than 4,000 people were victims of political killings, over 300 ``disappeared'' and an estimated 300,000 people were internally displaced. And also, again, there are too many connections between military and paramilitary, which I think will be part of the debate on Colombia. Labor rights, and Mexico: Independent trade unions faced difficulties in organizing during the year. . . . there are frequent abuses in the country's 4,000 or so maquiladoras. Since NAFTA came into force, some 3,000 assembly-for-export companies have set up business in Tijuana. According to a study by Infolatina, over 1.3 million workers are paid less than $6 a day to work in often deplorable conditions. . . . These are our own Government reports. This one was actually the ``International Confederation of Trade Unions Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights for 2001.'' The ``2002 International Labor Organization (ILO) Global Report on Child Labor'' has estimated that over 8 million children worldwide are trapped in the unconditional worst forms of child labor--which are internationally defined as slavery, trafficking, debt bondage, and other forms of forced labor. And 180 million children aged 5 to 17--or 73 percent of all child laborers--are now believed to be engaged in the worst forms of child labor, comprising hazardous work and the unconditional worst forms of child labor. From the April 2002 Human Rights Report titled, ``Tainted Harvest: Child Labor and Obstacles to Organizing on Ecuador's Banana Plantations'': Child workers explained that they were exposed to toxic chemicals, handling insecticide-treated plastics, working under fungicide-spraying airplanes in the fields, and directly applying post-harvest pesticides in packing plants. You name it. I could go on and on. There was a Washington Post piece, which I mentioned earlier: ``Worked Till they Drop: Few Protections for China's New Laborers.'' Again, the young woman I talked about was 19: Lying on her bed that night, staring at the bunk above her, the slight 19-year-old complained she felt worn out, her roommates recalled. Finally the lights went out. Her roommates had already fallen asleep when Li started coughing up blood. They found her in the bathroom a few hours later, curled up on the floor, moaning softly in the dark, bleeding from her nose and mouth. Someone called an ambulance, but she died before it arrived. Colleagues, I just have to tell you, it is like we are being told that we should lead, but we should lead on the basis of our own values. On the first amendment, we will see what my colleagues do. I want to have a rigorous analysis of what the impact of these trade agreements will be on our working families. I do not want anything whitewashed. I want to know what the effect will be in the south. I want to know what the effect will be for textile and steelworkers. And I want to know what the effect will be on not only jobs lost but wages and the right to organize--you name it. That is what this first amendment is about. With the second amendment, I want to have a democracy, human rights clause. I think we should at least say the countries that we are signing these trade agreements with, will at least agree to make an effort. I have pretty reasonable language to deal with human rights. There are probably 70 governments in the world that systematically practice torture. Do we care? Can't we at least have some language that says countries have to show they are making an effort? Why would we oppose that? Shouldn't we do something about these deplorable child labor conditions? Are we just going to put this unpleasant reality into parenthesis? I don't believe so. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled Russia, born in the Ukraine. I believe in human rights. I think my colleagues do. And the amendment I am going to bring to the floor later is very reasonable. It just says let's at least have a clause where there has to be some effort on the part of these countries to make a commitment to moving forward on this democracy and human rights agenda. And then, I just have to say, the TANF amendment is a no-brainer. With all due respect, why should our Government money, why should our TANF money--States are hard pressed right now--why should we see that subcontracted out to companies that are actually doing the work in regard to welfare reform located in other nations--India or wherever. I am not picking on India. I am just saying, it is not appropriate to use TANF money to do that when we are supposed to try to enable welfare mothers to do some work. And they could be doing the work. It does not make a bit of sense. Finally, we will be out here tomorrow with this steel amendment, which is so important. It is the right thing to do. It has a reasonable cost. It will be a great statement for the Senate to make, Democrats and Republicans alike: a 1-year bridge on legacy costs. Retirees have worked hard all their lives. Companies now go bankrupt and walk away from retiree health care benefits. This is about compassion. This is about basically our being willing to help. Boy, I will tell you what. For the Iron Range in Minnesota, nothing could be more important. It is like that is why you are here. It is why you are here because everybody has this experience. You know people are frightened, and you know people really don't know what they are going to do. They don't know what they are going to do, and they ask you to help. That is what this is about. And it certainly should be part of the trade adjustment assistance package. It is a good package. I give my colleagues a lot of credit for working hard and coming up with a bipartisan package. Mr. President, there are other Senators in the Chamber. I will stay here if there is debate on this amendment that basically calls for, really, as I say, a rigorous labor impact clause to this bill. But I will wait to hear from my colleagues. I am hoping there will be strong support because it just says let's know what we need to know. Let's make sure that information is public. Mr. President, I wait to hear from my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will respond to my good friend from Iowa in a couple different ways. First of all--and I think he came around to this--well, I don't know what his overall position is, but I think this amendment is not about an overall discussion about trade policy. As my colleague said, it is all about jobs. What this amendment says is, that is right; it is all about jobs. Let's have a thorough analysis. Let's have a thorough analysis of the impact of these trade agreements on jobs. We can debate for a long time, I say to my colleague from Iowa, about trade policy. I am pleased to do so. I do not want to take a lot of time away from other Senators, and I want to answer the specific questions. I do want to say one thing, though. I do not want my good friend from Iowa to corner me as a sort of protectionist. I do not view this debate as being between people who are for or against free trade or protection. I view this as a debate between people who are saying, look, we have this new international economy and let's go forward with it, and the market will take care of everything; there do not have to be any rules with it, versus those of us who say, yes, we have this international economy, we are all for trade, let's make sure we harness this in such a way that there are some rules ensuring these agreements work not just for the multinational corporations but for our workers and for the environment and human rights and independent producers. That is all this debate is about. Frankly, if I were to look at this with a sense of history, I do not think this is a lot different than the beginning of the 1900s. What happened in the beginning of our Nation 100 years ago is that the economy went from more local and agrarian to national and industrial, and as these economic changes took place, some of these economic changes were wrenching changes. It gave rise to very interesting politics as to what happened during that period of time. This was the populist-progressive politics. This was Teddy Roosevelt's time. This was the Farmers Alliance. This was the labor unions building. What happened? We had demands for an 8-hour day. We had antitrust action, the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act, women demanded the right to vote, and progressives said Senators should be directly elected, and so on and so forth. And you know what. Actually, as hard as those struggles were, the media was opposed to all those groups and organizations and people who felt that, in a democracy, you demand what you have courage to demand. They did not have the support of the media. The Pinkertons murdered organizers, and money dominated politics probably more so even than it does now. Believe it or not, but you know what. Those courageous citizens were successful. They changed our country for the better. So it is, 100 years later, we now see some revolutionary changes in the economy. Now it is an international economy, and trade policy dramatically affects the quality or lack of quality of the lives of people we represent. What I insist on is that there be some rules that go with this new international economy. I don't trust these multinational corporations to look out for the best interests of family farmers or workers or ordinary citizens in my State of Minnesota or anywhere else. I will tell you something. Over the next 10 years, I want to say today in this Chamber to the Senator from Iowa, this will become a burning issue--whether or not with this new international economy we just say the market handles everything or whether or not we say, isn't there some way that ordinary citizens fit into this somehow and there are some rules that go with this to make sure it works for people. That is what people 100 years ago were saying: We want this new national commerce civilized. We want it to work for us ordinary people, too. That is basically my framework. Now, first of all, the amendment is about jobs, not this overall political economy debate in particular and specifically I say a thorough analysis of the impact. Second of all, as to why we are talking about an impact, we have some specificity, I say to my colleague from Iowa. It is on the basis I said earlier during the debate. You want to look at job security. You want to look at also the level of compensation. You want to look at regional distribution. You want to look at where people are losing jobs. And you want to look at past trade agreements. Frankly, we ought to look at all of that. There are some good economists and others who have argued that it isn't even just the case of loss of jobs. It is also a question of whether or not these trade agreements and companies that then leave parts of our country basically deny ordinary working people the leverage they need in their bargaining and their negotiations so they are put at a more severe disadvantage and have to settle for even lower wages or even worse health care benefits because of the threat of more companies leaving. Let's have analysis of that. The next question from my colleague from Iowa was, how would this affect what a President does? Presumably, a President, whether that President is a Democrat or Republican, will look at the impact it has on many working families throughout the country or in regions of the country and then decide it is good or decide maybe not--maybe now that I have all this data before me and all the specific information before me what I thought was a good agreement might not be good. I think the President and the Members of the Congress as decisionmakers should have more information. That is all. Frankly, I think the general public should as well. As to the whole question of why regional, I do not prejudge the final decision that any President or we would make, I say to my colleague from Iowa, about these agreements, but I do think we should know if it has a particularly harsh impact on textiles in the South. If it has a particularly harsh impact on auto workers, let's know. If it has a particularly harsh impact on steelworkers or taconite workers on the Iron Range, we want to know. All politics are local. Tip O'Neill said that. It is true. We all come to fight for people in our States, and we should have the information on how these agreements affect particular regions or States. Does it mean a President might not still think it is the right agreement? Does it mean that Senators agree or disagree? Gunnar Myrdal was right, and I am not firing accusations at my colleagues. I just love the quote. Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish socialist, once said, ``Ignorance is never random. Sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know.'' I say we should know what we need to know. That is what this amendment says. Finally, and this is my only hard-hitting point, my colleague from Iowa said it could be dropped from the conference--I think heard him say that--if we accept it. It could be. I tell you what my position is on this bill. If the Senator did not say that, better yet. I apologize. My position on this bill is, we will see what it turns out to be in the Senate. I think there are some good amendments that have passed. We still have an amendment on supporting legacy costs for steelworkers. We have good trade adjustment assistance. I want to see ultimately where we come down. I reserve final judgment until I see what kind of bill we have. But if, in conference committee, this becomes some little strategy game and there are a few people in conference committee who say, ``Well, now we are together here, we will just knock this amendment out and knock that amendment out; they passed it in the Senate, and they did it on voice vote and we can knock it out,'' there are a lot of us who are going to raise cane, and we probably won't win on the vote, but, ultimately, we all get held accountable. I think it will take some real explaining as to why anyone would not want to have an honest, rigorous assessment of how trade agreements affect the lives of people we represent, period. I am pleased to have a recorded vote on this if we are going to start talking about knocking it out of conference committee. I have not decided; I guess I could ask for the yeas and nays. I do not know. I want to see what my colleagues are interested in.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we can finish. I do not know why the intensity goes up with my colleague from Iowa since I think we enjoy each other as friends. I have two quick points and will be done. First, I have to say in a friendly way that I think the Senator from Iowa misreads this. I am not going to call for a recorded vote. We are trying to work together and the Senator supports this amendment. When my colleagues says this is too negative, I do not prejudge what these studies find. I am skeptical about it. I have laid out some figures of what I think is happening to trade, but to say you are going to do an assessment on job security, compensation of jobs, displacement of employment, and regional distribution, my colleague is actually making my case for me by thinking it is negative because he must think the study will show the consequences are negative. We do not need to change any language. Just do the assessment. People in good faith can have different views. My colleagues might think such a study makes the case for these trade agreements. Maybe it will. I do not think so. Frankly, let's see what the assessment does. It is not negative or positive. I am just saying this is what we have to look at and then we will see what the results show. I never used the word ``manage.'' This is semantics. This administration thinks that commercial property rights are primary in trade agreements. I think labor, environment, human rights, and consumer protection are also primary. They are not secondary. That should be part of the new rules. That is the only difference we have. By the way, what is interesting to me is that there can be a million editorials written in the most prestigious newspapers--actually most people in the country feel the same way. They feel like, let us not build walls. I am an internationalist, but please make sure our concerns and our families' concerns are somehow met. What is going to be the impact on us? Are there going to be any fair labor standards? Are there going to be any human rights standards? Is there going to be anything about the environment? Why is it so weighted toward commercial property rights? What happened to our rights as workers? What happened to our rights as consumers? What happened to our rights as families who are worried about the jobs we lose? We could go on, but we will not. I have one final thing to say. My colleague from Montana, when he was talking about the increase in jobs, or someone was--I remember this famous quote, and I think it was a good one, from one of the industrial workers who lost her job in a high-paying industry. President Clinton-- I will be bipartisan about this--was talking about all the jobs created, and she said: Yes, I know all of them now. I have three of them because I need three jobs to make the wages and support my family from what was my one job as an autoworker. None of the Senators, Democrats or Republicans alike, would ever convince the industrial workers of this Nation that they have not gotten the short end of the stick as a result of some of these trade agreements. The autoworkers in Iowa will not be convinced of that. They never will, I do not think, as good a Senator as the Senator from Iowa is, and my colleague from Iowa is as good a Senator as one could find. I just think they do not see it that way. And I do not, either. In any case, we will do the impact statement, with my colleagues' support, and I hope this is not gutted in conference committee. I think it would be a huge mistake. I think it would be as if to say we do not want to have a good study. Let us have the assessment and then we will know. Do my colleagues want to move forward on the vote?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support this important amendment. This amendment will help preserve our trade laws by allowing Congress to exclude trade remedy provisions from any agreement receiving fast track consideration. This is extremely important at a time when our trade laws are under attack at the WTO. Here's how it would work: Should Congress receive a trade agreement containing a provision changing current U.S. trade remedy law, the provision would be subject to a point of order. After hearing the administration's concerns about minority obstructionism, Senators Dayton and Craig changed this amendment so that the point of order is now subject to a simple majority vote. Yet, still the administration opposes this amendment. It opposes the legislature of the United States having a simple up or down vote on a provision of a trade agreement that changes existing law that this body made. In fact, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the USTR have said they would strongly recommend to the President that he veto this bill if the Dayton-Craig amendment passes. This amendment is entirely appropriate. Given many of the trade agreements we have seen, at a minimum, this body should ensure we retain our authority and obligation to fully deliberate and debate and proposed changes to U.S. trade remedy law. The amendment would provide a critical channel through which Senators could act to prevent such undesirable agreements as the one made--in spite of our strong and vocal opposition--at the latest WTO negotiations in Doha: In May 2001, 62 Senators sent a letter to the President specifically opposing any weakening of trade remedy laws in international negotiations; in a subsequent Hill appearance USTR Zoellick made a public commitment to Senator Rockefeller that the administration would not permit this to happen. At Doha however, other WTO member countries demanded U.S. trade remedy laws be put on the table as a condition of beginning the new round. So, despite the word of the Administration that this would happen--it did. The administration broke its word to us and our trade remedy laws are on the table. With this amendment, we will send a strong message directly to other WTO countries and the administration that the U.S. Senate will not tolerate any weakening of these critical laws. Oddly enough, while the administration continues to allow our trading partners to rewriter U.S. trade remedy laws, China refuses to even discuss theirs. Accordingly to last Friday's Inside U.S. Trade: China over the past week continued to resist efforts aimed at reaching agreement on timelines and procedures for information it must provide to the World Trade Organization committees in charge of reviews of its trade remedy laws that were set up as a condition of China's entry to the WTO. China charged this week that these proposed procedures go beyond the obligations of its accession commitments . . . Specifically, China, argues it is not obligated to discuss specific procedures for the reviews of its antidumping, subsidies and safeguards mechanisms. There is absolutely no reason for us to allow the safeguards provided by our trade laws to be undermined by the concerted efforts other countries in multilateral negotiations. All of our trade remedy laws-- from the anti-dumping and countervailing duties to the Trade Act's section 201 and 301--are entirely consistent with WTO principles and help protect U.S. workers and producers from unfair trade practices. At a press conference last week, USTR Zoellick said this amendment would prevent the U.S. from negotiating on trade remedies, and because this issue is a priority for U.S. trading partners, the amendment would lead these countries to refuse to negotiate at all. This statement should make it clear to all that not only does this administration believe certain countries are willing to trade with us only if they are able to weaken or undermine our trade remedy laws; but that it intends to accommodate them. By permitting a point of order against any trade agreement provisions that change our trade laws, this amendment provides an extra level of protection for these vitally important safeguards. These laws have been effectively employed in a variety of sectors to address numerous trade imbalances or to give domestic producers vital time to address major import surges. Our spring wheat farmers in Minnesota have been struggling for years to win effective relief against cheap imports from Canada. And its not that Minnesota wheat producers cannot compete with their Canadian counterparts--it is that the Canadian system is run so very differently from ours that direct competition simply does not occur. The Canadian Wheat Board enjoys monopoly control over their domestic wheat markets. Its ability to set prices months in advance effectively insulates Canadian wheat farmers from the commercial risks that Minnesota growers are routinely exposed to, and gives their product a built-in advantage right here in our own American market. Unfortunately our softwood lumber producers have faced many of the same obstacles in competing with their Canadian counterparts. Of course we are disappointed that we were unable to informally resolve our differences with our close friend and ally. But at least we have meaningful trade remedy laws we can fall back on. The International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce found earlier this month that our lumber industry is threatened with material injury from subsidized Canadian imports. As a result, countervailing duty and antidumping duties will be issued on these products. Another Minnesota industry that has been immeasurably helped by these trade remedy laws is that of sugar beet production. Together with our hard working neighbors in North Dakota, our beet sugar industry is the largest in the country--an estimated $1 billion in economic benefits flows from it each year. Yet without the protection of our trade remedy laws, this industry could be in serious jeopardy. Our trading partners in the EU are one of the largest exporters of beet sugar in the world yet it is well-known that they have been heavily subsidizing their production. Our industry cannot and should not be expected to compete with such heavily subsidized imports. This is why there are antidumping and countervailing duty orders currently in effect on imported European beet sugar. As Minnesota beet sugar producers know all too well, these orders are entirely appropriate and very necessary countermeasures to the considerable subsidies that EU producers enjoy. We cannot expect our producers to be able to compete with the unreasonably low prices that subsidies or closed, monopolistic systems produce. We look forward to the day when there is a more level playing field. But until that day comes, it is vitally important that we protect and maintain these trade remedy laws that all too often represent their only hope for much-needed relief. As we have learned over the past decade, trade liberalization has increased the opportunities for unscrupulous countries or industries to manipulate markets through unfair trade practices. With major new agreements like the FTAA on the horizon, it is imperative that we maintain these important laws so that they can continue to be used to protect our workers and companies from the risks posed by those who seek to distort and manipulate the very markets we are seeking to open to free and fair competition.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Resolution of Disapproval to reverse a rule submitted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. The rule, which takes effect today, lowers the Medicaid Upper Payment Limit for non-State government owned or operated hospitals. It reduces the Federal Medicaid match, or Medicaid Upper Payment Limit, from 150 percent of the Medicare rate to 100 percent. According to the administration's budget, the rule will cut $9 billion over 5 years, money currently targeted to public hospitals and other ``safety net'' health programs, the most vulnerable sector of our health care system. At a time when Medicaid programs in the States are struggling, we simply can't afford to take this amount from our health care safety net. Too many people will be hurt. The regulation will mean a loss of about $30 million for Minnesota's public health care system this year, potentially more in future years. Hennepin County Medical Center alone stands to lose about $10 million this year. This is a hospital that provides essential health care for thousands of Minnesotans. For many, it is the only place they can go. Other hospitals and clinics around Minnesota will also be deprived of needed funding. At a time when our health care system, and particularly our public hospitals are struggling just to survive, we ought not to be taking resources away from them like this. CMS Director Scully has attempted to justify this damaging reduction by pointing to instances in the past when States did not use the program's money for health care purposes. Director Scully is certainly correct. The program should be used for health care, not for anything else. But slashing the Upper Payment Limit means that none of this money goes to health care. That doesn't make any sense. The loopholes that existed in the program have already been closed. The rule is a $9 billion transfer away from those who desperately need health care, purportedly in order to solve a problem, but the problem has already been fixed. The rule is not needed and will cause great harm. I urge colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Resolution of Disapproval to reverse a rule submitted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. The rule, which takes effect today, lowers the Medicaid Upper Payment Limit for non-State government owned or operated hospitals. It reduces the Federal Medicaid match, or Medicaid Upper Payment Limit, from 150 percent of the Medicare rate to 100 percent. According to the administration's budget, the rule will cut $9 billion over 5 years, money currently targeted to public hospitals and other ``safety net'' health programs, the most vulnerable sector of our health care system. At a time when Medicaid programs in the States are struggling, we simply can't afford to take this amount from our health care safety net. Too many people will be hurt. The regulation will mean a loss of about $30 million for Minnesota's public health care system this year, potentially more in future years. Hennepin County Medical Center alone stands to lose about $10 million this year. This is a hospital that provides essential health care for thousands of Minnesotans. For many, it is the only place they can go. Other hospitals and clinics around Minnesota will also be deprived of needed funding. At a time when our health care system, and particularly our public hospitals are struggling just to survive, we ought not to be taking resources away from them like this. CMS Director Scully has attempted to justify this damaging reduction by pointing to instances in the past when States did not use the program's money for health care purposes. Director Scully is certainly correct. The program should be used for health care, not for anything else. But slashing the Upper Payment Limit means that none of this money goes to health care. That doesn't make any sense. The loopholes that existed in the program have already been closed. The rule is a $9 billion transfer away from those who desperately need health care, purportedly in order to solve a problem, but the problem has already been fixed. The rule is not needed and will cause great harm. I urge colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is very gracious. The Senator from Florida will go now followed by the minority leader and then I will follow the minority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Florida for his very eloquent statement. Second, I thank the minority leader, Senator Lott from Mississippi, for his graciousness in letting me proceed. I will try to be brief.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last week I said to people in northern Minnesota--specifically northeast Minnesota on the Iron Range--that I thought we had a real breakthrough. I thought it was part of fast track on trade adjustment authority, including legacy costs, and a 1-year bridge where health care costs would be covered. Through no fault of any of the retirees, a lot of these companies, including LTV, declared bankruptcy and walked away from health care benefits, which is terrifying to people in their older age. Yesterday, the administration came out with a statement about this trade adjustment assistance package: Specifically, the administration opposes the Daschle substitute last-minute addition of health insurance assistance for steel retirees. There is a nightmare. I say to my colleague from Mississippi that this is an absolute nightmare for people on the range. The President talked about how concerned he is. But this is just a 1- year bridge to help pay for these retirees' health care costs until we put together a package that deals with the legacy costs for the future. The President crushed the hopes of people with this position that the White House has now taken. The President says: Look what I have done for the steel industry. He talks about section 201, but now there are 1,000 exceptions to the kind of trade relief we thought we were going to get through section 201. In Minnesota, we were concerned about what was happening to the taconite industry. We were talking about the unfair competition from semifinished slab steel. Basically, the administration came up with a tariff quota, and it was 7 million tons of slab steel a year, which is what is being dumped right now on the range. It didn't give us any relief whatsoever. But, most important of all, what is happening now with this statement of position by the administration is they are just walking away from dealing with the legacy costs. Jerry Fowler, who testified before the HELP committee a couple of weeks ago, president of Local 4108, talked about the pain on the range, and talked about all of these people. Gosh. You talk about what we say we believe in--people who have just worked their heads off all of their lives, taconite workers, helping to produce steel, which is so critical to our national security, and a part of all of our military efforts. People are really proud and are proud of their families. They are proud of the range. Through no fault of their own, 32 steel companies have declared bankruptcy, and then they walk away from these people. They say they can no longer cover their health care benefits, nor their retiree benefits. Many people are afraid of no longer having prescription drug coverage. People were really hopeful, and I was able to report last week, and I was proud. I thank Senators Rockefeller, Mikulski, Stabenow, Levin, and certainly my colleague Mark Dayton. We worked hard to have iron ore and taconite included. This was a pragmatic part of the trade adjustment assistance--only a 1-year bridge, but it was a start. It would give people some security, and it was the right thing to do. The President has talked about his concern for steelworkers. Over and over again, he professed his concern for steelworkers. Then, specifically, the administration opposes the Daschle substitute last- minute addition of health insurance assistance for steel retirees. We know there is going to be a point of order and a budget challenge on this amendment. I believe what the White House has now done is basically sealed its fate. We are not going to be able to have this bridge. We are not going to be able to have this assistance for people. I question this fast track for a lot of reasons, but, at the very minimum, when people are out of work through no fault of their own--or people work for an industry that has been besieged with unfair trade-- the only thing they are asking for is a bridge to make sure retirees don't lose their benefits. All of us have worked so hard together--Senator Specter and Senator DeWine--to get this done. Now the administration comes out yesterday and torpedoes the whole thing. Mr. President, are you for the taconite workers on the Iron Range? Are you for the steelworkers? You say you are. We will be back on this over and over again. But this is a huge blow for the Iron Range in Minnesota and for me as a Senator from Minnesota trying to do my best to represent people. Yesterday the President made it very clear that all of his talk about helping the hard-working men and women of the U.S. steel industry is just that--talk. His latest pronouncement is that steelworker retirees don't need the assistance this bill would have provided to help them for 1 year to pay for health insurance they are losing because their company has gone bankrupt. This is outrageous--these are hard-working, decent, compassionate men and women who have devoted their lives to the steel industry--an industry that is essential to our national security--and now they find themselves without health insurance they were promised in their retirement because their companies have gone bankrupt, they're out in the cold without the resources to pay for health insurance, and the President says, oh, no, they don't need the 1-year lifeline this bill offers. Frankly, President Bush talks about what he's done for the steel industry and for steel workers. But there is not a lot of substance there. First, we had a section 201 decision that is looking more and more cosmetic. It may have brought relief to some sections of the steel industry, except that now the administration is entertaining all sorts of exceptions--there are over 1,000 exceptions to the President's section 201 decision and Secretary O'Neill is reported as saying that ``a significant portion of them will be favorably decided.'' Then there is the fact that the decision did nothing to help Minnesota's Iron Range--nor the iron industry as a whole--deal with import surges of semi-finished slab steel. While the President imposed tariffs on every other product category for which the International Trade Commission had found injury, for steel slab he decided to impose ``tariff rate quotas.'' This brings us virtually no relief. Nearly 7 million tons of steel slab can continue to be dumped on our shores before any tariff is assessed. For folks on the Iron Range, the injury will continue. Then, the President in his section 201 decision--and subsequently-- has totally ducked the serious legacy cost problem that is suffocating the domestic steel industry. In the last 2 years, 32 U.S. steel companies have filed for bankruptcy, and these companies represent nearly 30 percent of our domestic steel making capacity. These failures weren't the fault of the workers at these companies. These failures resulted from unfair and predatory practices of our trading partners over an extended period. Yet despite the moral and economic imperative to do something about this legacy cost problem so that the steel industry, so essential to our national security, can rebuild and revitalize itself, the President has washed his hands of the matter. It is somebody else's problem he says. And now there is the current bill. Those of us who are serious about this legacy cost problem, and it is a bipartisan group, have introduced S. 2189, the Steel Industry Retiree Benefits Protection Act of 2002, to address the legacy cost question in a comprehensive way. In the meantime, however, recognizing that every day steelworker retirees whose companies are going bankrupt are losing their heath insurance, Senator Daschle introduced provisions to provide stop gap assistance-- 1 year of health insurance to retirees who right now are losing their benefits--to tide folks over while we work on the larger problem. And that, incredibly, is what President Bush yesterday announced his opposition to. It is now abundantly clear, if there had been any doubt, that this President is not interested in health and well-being of our steelworker families. In Minnesota, on the Iron Range, there are several thousand retirees who find themselves in desperate need of assistance and this administration is turning its back on them. Earlier this year, the HELP Committee held hearings on the need for legacy cost legislation both for retirees and for the industry. The testimony was riveting. The need compelling. My good friend, Jerry Fallos, president of Local 4108 of the United Steelworkers of America, testified at those hearings. The stories he had to tell were grim indeed. As Jerry said, the people of the Iron Range are used to hard times. They have weathered any number of challenges over the years. They are good people, proud, hard working--the best you can find anywhere. They are survivors--and they will get through these difficult times as well. They have given much to their country, and now they need our help. The good people of the range have responded to their country in its times of needs. Over the years our Nation's economy flourished and our manufacturing industries boomed from the iron ore produced through the labors of steelworkers on the range. Yesterday, when President Bush announced his opposition to helping these steelworker retirees he said it would cost too much. We think his $800 million estimate is way off, but even if you accept it at face value, it pales in comparison to the billions and billions of dollars of tax giveaways this administration is happy to make available to multinational corporations and the wealthy. We are talking about $120 billion over 10 years to make the estate tax permanent, and $400 billion over 10 years to make all of the tax cuts permanent. Are these our priorities--$400 billion to multinational corporations and wealthy individuals as opposed to $400 million to help steelworker retirees keep their health insurance for 1 year? I have asked many time before: Where are our priorities; where are our values? How can we tolerate such choices--tax breaks to help multinationals over health insurance for steelworker retirees? These families need our help. I urge my colleagues not to turn our backs on these men and women who have served their country so well.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman to elaborate on the intent behind some of the changes made to the value-added agricultural product market development grant program in this farm bill. My understanding is that under this new language, USDA should seek to fund a broad diversity of projects that increase agricultural producers' share of the food and agricultural system profit, including projects likely to increase the profitability and viability of small and medium-sized farms and ranches. I certainly agree that USDA should seek to approve applications for projects likely to benefit producers with small and medium-sized agricultural operations. Do you agree that the language of this provision will allow USDA to do this?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand this bill also broadens eligibility for the program.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I commend my colleague from Iowa on his work on this provision. I certainly hope that USDA will make every effort to fund a wide variety of projects and to make grants of a wide variety of sizes, including small and mid-sized grants where appropriate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Erin Trenda, an intern in my office, be allowed to be on the floor during the duration of the conference report debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank the chair of the committee. I thank my colleague and very good friend, Senator Harkin, for his work on this bill. I thank Senator Lugar for his work, especially in the area dealing with nutrition, and for his thoughtful comments. I will start out with just a practical Minnesota point of view and then review broader questions. This coming year, Minnesota farmers will see $1.16 billion in assistance from this legislation--an increase of approximately $395 million over the 1996 farm bill. Over the next 6 years, my State will see about $5.7 billion from this farm bill. Or about a $2 billion increase above the 1996 farm bill for the State of Minnesota. Now, if I had my way--and I don't think my colleague would disagree with me--I would love to have higher loan rates and rely less on direct payments so that farmers would have more leverage to get a better price through the marketplace. However, the 1996 farm bill or the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill was one of the worst things that ever happened to Rural America. I went home the day it was passed, and I said to my wife Sheila: This is the worst thing that has happened in the Senate. This year, without a new farm bill, the Freedom to Farm bill would give us a 20-percent drop in farm income. All that has kept farmers going is all the AMTA payments and the Government subsidy. If Members are worried about payment limitation, which I am and which my colleague said we will come back to again, this fight is not over. A lot of these direct payments to the largest producers have been the epitome of subsidy in inverse relationship to need. However I don't make apologies as a Senator from Minnesota for supporting this bill. I would have liked to have had the ban on packer ownership. I tried to pass that amendment in committee. We lost. Then I joined Senators Johnson, Grassley, and Harkin to offer a ban on packer ownership on the Senate floor. We won. Then it was knocked out in conference. Unfortunately the House conferees refused to support it. However, we will come back to it again. In the Senate, we passed a bipartisan payment limitation amendment. The Senate bill established a reasonable limitation on payments to the very largest farming operation, that would have affected fewer than 100 farms in my State of Minnesota. My colleague from Indiana has spoken to that. It was the right thing to do, and I continue to strongly support those payment limitations. I regret what came out of conference, but again we were blocked by the House conferees. But as Senator Harkin said, are we going to let a conference committee stop a whole farm bill and continue with ``freedom to fail''? There is too much economic pain in the countryside. I didn't like what happened with the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. I passed an amendment in the Senate that limited payments to $30,000. The amendment, which Senators Harkin and Lugar supported, also said: Do not let the Smithfields of this world own six, seven, eight confined animal feeding operations and get a big subsidy for every one of them. I would preferred that EQIP, an important environmental program, be targeted to our family farmers. There are certainly some missed opportunities. But, on the positive side, my colleague from Iowa already talked about the dairy front. This is hugely important for my State of Minnesota. This is the first really good, positive thing I have seen happen in dairy for over a decade. In addition, while I will continue to fight for higher loan rates, in the House bill, the Secretary of Agriculture had the discretion to lower loan rates. This administration, the President in his budget proposal, went on record in support of lower loan rates. So at least the loan rates go up for the first time in a couple of decades and the effective safety net or target price is much higher. I am hoping and praying our producers can cash-flow so they will have a future. I think this legislation will give them that opportunity. Again, for this coming year, to talk about $394 million of addition assistance to Minnesota agriculture, I make no apologies for that as a Senator from Minnesota. Over the next 6 years, an average of $330 million more of it is targeted to Minnesota family farmers so they can continue to farm. You better believe I support that. An increase of net farm income averaging $4.5 billion a year for the Nation--you better believe I support that. It is a darned sight better than ``freedom to fail.'' When I hear some of my colleagues say actually supporting family farmers is in competition with the Social Security trust fund or making sure we support Medicare, I just have to smile and say: Wait a minute. Where were you when you voted for these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts which bleed the economy of trillions of dollars? Where were you? Don't be pitting family farmers in Minnesota against Medicare or against Social Security. We are not going to let you get away with that, not in this debate and not ever. On the plus side, above and beyond arguments made already, I would like to thank the chairman, Senator Harkin, and I am proud to be part of this effort as well. I would also like to thank the other Senate conferees--Senators Daschle, Conrad, and Leahy. Senator Harkin's success on this bill is irrefutable. Senator Harkin from Iowa, with the Conservation Security Program, he led the way. The Conservation Security Program will provide assistance to producers who adopt conservation practices on working lands. I love the Conservation Reserve Program, which we were able to increase with this bill. I love the Wetlands Reserve Program, which we were also able to increase. I love working with Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and other great conservation groups. Now, with the Conservation Security Program we will be focusing on land in production with economic incentives for farmers to utilize wise conservation practices. This is win-win-win. I have loved seeing Senator Harkin, the environmental community, and the agricultural community working together. This is really a sea change for the better. It is a huge change for the better and the Senator from Iowa deserves all the credit in the world for this. Above and beyond that we have Country of Origin Labeling, that was an amendment I did in committee. I am proud to pass that amendment. I thank the conferees for keeping it in. I know these big conglomerates don't like it because it gives our independent producers a leg up, because these big conglomerates are shipping out and shipping in and not relying on our independent producers here in this country. In addition consumers have a right to know what they are eating and where it is from. It is hugely important. Frankly--I can say it now because the conference report is over--I am amazed it is in the conference report, but I thank the Chairman for his help. Then for the first time ever we have an energy title. People are excited in Greater Minnesota, in rural America, about this energy section, because rural America has part of the answer. We talked about ethanol and biodiesel, but there is another part of this--it's wind, solar, and biomass. In Minnesota it is a no-brainer. We are a cold weather State at the other end of the pipeline. We import barrels of oil. We export $11 billion a year, but we are rich in wind and biomass to electricity; we are rich in saved energy, we are rich in clean technology, small business. This is a marriage ready to be made in heaven. This bill moves us down that path--a clean energy path. It is respectful of the environment, keeps capital in the community, it is small business intensive, jobs intensive, keeps capital in our States--this is great. The economic development piece is hugely important. I heard my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, talking about telecommunications, that we don't want to be left out. I am so pleased my Rural Telework Initiative has been included. Again, it is my work and I am bragging about it, but setting up a telework institute is a major victory for rural communities. Information technology companies, have said: Listen, we know the work ethic of people in rural America. We want to make sure, if the Federal Government is willing to provide the grants and willing to get this going--then we have a real opportunity for people to be able, out of their homes, out of a satellite office, to work for companies halfway across the world much less halfway across our own country. People do not have to leave our rural communities. Our young people do not have to leave. I meet so many young people in Greater Minnesota, in our rural communities. Basically they are following the advice to get ahead, get a good education, which means get out of here. That is the death knell for our communities. One thing they are asking about is whether or not they could stay in the community. Are they going to be able to? If they farm, are they going to get a decent price, job opportunities, a small business going? Will there be good education and health care and environment? And on the job opportunities--I love this--the Rural Telework Initiative means people in our rural communities can work for companies halfway across the world. Let's make sure this happens. We don't want rural America left behind with this information technology economy. We can be a part of it. I think there is huge bipartisan support for this. Of course I am bragging, but I want my State of Minnesota to be the leader. I think we can. My final point: We are going to be back on this fight on packer ownership. We are going to be back on this fight on payment limitations. I talked to the chairman and he said we are going to do additional investigative work, we are going to do additional public hearings. In addition, one of the things I can't wait to do, and albeit it is easier said than done, I want to write an antitrust bill looking at the food industry. In summary, this conference report perfect, but I do not want to keep going on with this ``freedom to fail'' bill. I want to see a change. This bill represents that change. I agree with some of the critiquing from some of my colleagues, but all in all, this is a step forward for agriculture in Minnesota. It is a big step forward for the farm structure in Minnesota. It is a big step forward for the environment. It is a big step forward for a better energy policy. It is a big step forward for economic development. It is a big step forward for people who live in Greater Minnesota and live in our rural communities. I am willing to come out here and debate and fight for this bill and support this bill. An finally would like to ask for a commitment from Senator Harkin that we are not done with this battle on the reform battle on payment limitations, and on the ban on packer ownership. Let's go after some of these conglomerates. It's the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a request I want to make to be allowed to follow the Senator?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania before he leaves, Senator Byrd has now gone to the hearing. If my colleague needs to continue, I will wait. Senator Byrd has actually now gone to committee. I am pleased to speak now but I want my colleague to be clear on the situation.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.