Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also, if I could, want to take just a few minutes to speak about Social Security, about its future, and about a campaign under way to trade it in for a privatized system like the one we have in Chile. President Clinton has called for a nationwide debate on Social Security for the balance of this year, to be followed by a White House conference in December and legislative action early next year. I think it is time--perhaps well past time--for the defenders of Social Security to speak up and be heard. As far as I am concerned, Social Security is one of America's proudest accomplishments of the 20th century. It has given retirement security to Americans of all ages and has rescued millions of seniors from the scourge of poverty. Everyone says they want to protect and preserve this remarkably efficient and effective program which is so beloved by the American people. But you would never know it, judging from the direction the debate is taking. The premise of the debate is that Social Security is on the verge of bankruptcy and must be transformed in order to survive. I strongly disagree. Social Security is not in crisis. It is not broke. It is not facing bankruptcy. It may need some modest adjustments, but the greatest dangers facing Social Security today are the many misguided proposals to ``fix'' it. You can hardly open a newspaper these days without reading about the impending collapse of Social Security. This is nonsense. Social Security is now taking in $101 billion more each year than it pays out in benefits. In April, the Social Security trustees reported that the trust funds will be able to cover benefits for the next 34 years, until the year 2032. After that, without any changes to the system, it will still be able to pay out 70 to 75 percent of the promised benefits, virtually indefinitely without any change whatever in the system. There is no reason why Social Security should come to an abrupt end in 2032 or any time thereafter. Some would seize upon this projected funding imbalance decades from now as an excuse to undermine the program. They want to replace Social Security with a privatized system in which retirement security depends solely on success in playing the financial markets. But why would we want to get rid of a program that has worked so well? Why should we want to ``end Social Security as we know it?'' In fact, that's what I think some of these proposals should be called--``ending Social Security as we know it.'' If we really want to protect and preserve Social Security, we should be guided by two principles. First, we should focus all of our energies on the real problem, which is a possible imbalance in the trust funds after the year 2032. Second, under no circumstances should we allow funding for Social Security to be squandered on the fees, commissions, and overhead of Wall Street middlemen. There are a number of ways to go about this. Several prominent economists have come forward with detailed reform packages that would guarantee long-term balance of the trust funds. Other proposals will be coming out soon. These are relatively minor adjustments to the current system. They are not radical surgery. Privatization, on the other hand, is radical surgery. And it doesn't even solve the problem. In fact, it actually takes away money from the trust funds. How could that be? The answer is so-called ``transition costs.'' They are really going to be a huge problem. Right now, over 80 percent of payroll taxes are used to pay benefits for current retirees. Under a privatized system, those payroll taxes would be diverted into individual retirement accounts. But younger workers would still have to pay payroll taxes to fund benefits for current retirees. In effect, they would be paying twice. There is no way of doing that without increasing taxes, cutting benefits, or depleting the trust funds. Here is an idea: Instead of paying unnecessary transition costs, what if we used that money to restore the trust funds? The same goes for the more modest steps toward privatization now being discussed in Congress. Some members have proposed diverting 1, 2 or 3 percent of the 12.4- percent payroll tax into new individual accounts. Others would use a budget surplus to do the same thing. Instead of setting up private accounts, we could just as easily use that money to shore up the trust funds. That is the problem we are supposed to be fixing, isn't it? It's hard to explain how you are saving the trust funds when you're taking money out instead of putting money in. The important thing, Mr. President, is to stay focused. As our guiding principle, we should insist that any legislation purporting to save Social Security actually live up to its billing. It should reserve for the trust funds any new savings or revenues. We shouldn't let some speculative shortfall, 34 years from now, be used as an excuse to force through a very different--and, I would add, a very radical--agenda. Why are we getting sidetracked with individual accounts and privatization schemes that don't actually solve the problem? The reason is simple--money. Wall Street money, and lots of it. Mutual fund companies, stock brokerages, life insurance companies and banks are all salivating at the prospect of 130 million potential new customers coming their way. Privatization of Social Security could bring them untold billions of dollars in extra fees and commissions. That is why they have invested millions of dollars in a massive public relations campaign promoting privatization, and they are doing a heck of a good job of it. That is one reason why they have contributed so heavily to congressional and Presidential campaigns. The heavy hitters, the big givers, they are heavily involved in this campaign. Let me read from a story in the Washington Post on September 30, 1996. The headline says, ``Wall Street's Quiet Message: Privatize Social Security.'' It reads: Wall Street is putting its weight behind the movement in Washington to privatize Social Security . . . Lobbyists for Wall Street are trying to stay behind the scenes as they argue for privatization because they and their firms so obviously stand to profit by the changes they are promoting, according to financial industry executives. Representatives of mutual funds, brokerages, life insurance companies, and banks are involved in a lobbying effort to have the government let Wall Street manage a slice of Social Security's money . . . Representatives of investment firms have begun lobbying Capitol Hill and the White House to advance their agenda, according to financial service industry executives . . . Wall Street officials want to avoid or at least deflect accusations that they are seeking to transform Social Security to line their own purses. And, I might add, their own purposes. There has been some very good reporting in the Post, in the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere on exactly who is paying how much money to whom. It is absolutely unbelievable the way in which these Wall Street interests have hijacked this debate. It is time for those of us who want to protect this system to stand up and begin to speak out and fight back against these very radical efforts to privatize a social insurance program that has been such a huge success, not just for senior citizens, but for our parents and our grandparents. I think it would be a tragedy if we stood by and let the trust funds be squandered by Wall Street--and squandered on Wall Street. In Chile, where they privatized Social Security in 1981, an estimated 19 percent of worker contributions gets skimmed off the top by pension companies. That's 19 percent skimmed off the top by the middlemen. Social Security in our country, by contrast, has administrative costs of less than 1 percent with no fees, no commissions. One percent administrative costs, no fees, no commissions, not going to the big Wall Street interests. And now we have these efforts to privatize the system and turn over a large part of the surplus to Wall Street? Unbelievable. Champions of privatization like to brag about higher returns on the stock market as compared to Social Security. I think those claims are exaggerated. But even if they were true, you don't need individual accounts managed by Wall Street campaign contributors to capture the higher yields. You would get the same average returns if Social Security did the investing itself. And that way, seniors would still be guaranteed a monthly benefit indexed for inflation. I'm not saying we should do that, necessarily. Stock markets go down as well as up. With all the financial turmoil in Asia and Russia right now, we might want to think twice about betting the future of the trust funds on go-go emerging markets. But whatever we do, we should insist that the trust fund money not be siphoned off to Wall Street middlemen. I want to say that again to my colleagues. We might want to think twice about betting the future of the trust funds on go-go emerging markets. But whatever we do, we should insist that this trust fund money not be siphoned off to the Wall Street middlemen, which is actually what the privatization proposals do. Our immediate focus should be on fixing the problem at hand--a projected shortfall in the trust funds 34 years in the future. We should not be diverting resources to half-baked schemes that would only make the problem worse. We should not let Wall Street campaign contributors push through a ``reform plan'' that would only give them a slice of the trust funds. Privatization is a phony solution to a phony crisis. Social Security has been phenomenally successful for over a half a century--60 years. It ensures millions of Americans against disability, death of a spouse, and destitution in their old age. Compared to private retirement plans, it is a very good deal. And it is the most successful antipoverty program America has ever devised. It is simple. You reach the age of 62 or 65, you get older, you are no longer working, your earnings decline. There was a time when probably half of the poverty population in our country were the elderly. That was a national disgrace. That is no longer the case. This is a very successful program. While all of us should be saving more, the fact is that there will always be millions and millions of Americans who depend solely on Social Security for their retirement security. In fact, as fewer and fewer Americans have employer-provided pensions and as businesses are rapidly shifting from defined benefit plans to defined contribution, we need Social Security now more than ever. This is no time to end ``Social Security as we know it.'' We now have proposals, privatization schemes, to ``end Social Security as we know it.'' That is what this is all about. I am amazed that we have not had more discussion about how to modify and support Social Security as opposed to the privatization schemes that dismantle Social Security. I will give some of my colleagues credit. They have been able to take, 34 years in the future, a potential shortfall and reduce it to an agenda that dismantles the Social Security system as we know it. We need to have a major discussion and debate over this. In the coming weeks and months, I plan to be talking at great length about how we can correct the projected shortfall 34 years from now without ending Social Security as we know it. Right now, friends of Social Security are generating a number of proposals that do not amount to radical surgery. Those ideas deserve to be heard. Advocates for the privatization plan favored by Wall Street should not have a monopoly over this debate. If we have a fully informed discussion and all options are really on the table, I am very confident that the American people will support a progressive solution that does not end Social Security as we know it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robin Buhrke, who is a fellow in my office, be allowed to be on the floor while I speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak again--and I shall be relatively brief--about the nomination of James C. Hormel to be United States Ambassador to Luxembourg. I point out to colleagues that it has now been more than 8 months that his nomination has languished, awaiting an opportunity for us to consider this on the Senate floor. I have spoken on the floor before about Mr. Hormel. Let me just make one point. We in fact have voted before on Mr. Hormel when we made the decision as to whether or not he would be a representative to the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. General Assembly. As I look at his qualifications, he has had a tremendous amount of success as a businessman, a tremendous amount of success as a lawyer, a tremendous amount of success in philanthropy, a tremendous amount of success from the point of view of very, very moving, very personal testimony by his former wife, his children, his family members, people who really know him well--and, I say to the Chair, people who know him not from the point of view of formal credentials, not from the point of view of any political fight, but from the point of view of kind of measuring the character of a person. My feeling is, colleagues can have different views about this nomination, but I believe it is extremely important that this nomination be brought to the floor. I've said it before. I have spoken any number of different times on the floor about Mr. Hormel. What I have said is that if there is a debate about his qualifications, that is quite one thing. If so, then let us have that debate. But I do not want the Senate to deny a nomination to anyone because of their sexual orientation. I think that would be discrimination. It's not just that I think that would be discrimination; it would be discrimination. And I think it is terribly important that the Senate take a long, hard look at itself and, at the very minimum, we have the debate. I think to be silent about this is a betrayal of what the Senate stands for, which is a fundamental respect for the dignity and worth of each and every person. The reason I come to the floor is just to say, colleagues, we have the tobacco bill before us. And we have had a number of amendments. We have still got a long ways to go. I do not know that I will bring an amendment to the floor on this bill or not, in any case. But certainly if not the tobacco bill, on the next bill--or the next appropriate vehicle, as soon as possible; the sooner the better--I will have an amendment which in some way puts a focus on this whole question of judging a person by the content of his or her character, judging them by their qualifications, judging them by their leadership, and in no way, shape, or form making any kind of judgment based upon any form of discrimination. Understand me, because I am talking--and a friend of mine is presiding, a good friend, someone whom I disagree with, but whom I really like a lot. And I hope it is mutual. I am not arguing that different people can't have different views, and I am not arguing that there are some who in very good faith may oppose this nomination. Absolutely not. But I just think that there are some big questions to be resolved here. It is terribly important we not just block this. It is terribly important we have an honest discussion and an honest debate and we have an up-or-down vote. I think my role as a Senator is to bring some amendments to the floor on pieces of legislation to put this into very sharp focus.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on June 6, 1968, at 1:44 a.m., Bobby Kennedy passed away. I would like to speak about Senator Kennedy. First of all, I just recommend for people in Minnesota and our country a wonderful documentary that will be shown this week on TV on the Discovery Channel, ``Robert F. Kennedy, A Memoir.'' This was done by Jack Newfield and Charlie Stewart. My wife Sheila and I had a chance to see 2 hours of this, a preview. It is very powerful. I thought what I would do is read from a book which just came out, written by one of Bobby Kennedy's children, Maxwell Taylor Kennedy. The title of it is ``Make Gentle The Life Of The World.'' This is an excerpt from one of Bobby Kennedy's speeches: Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago, ``to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of the world.'' Thus the title, ``Make Gentle The Life Of The World.'' Let me just say at the beginning, before quoting from some of Bobby Kennedy's speeches, that I believe--this is just my opinion--that the Senator who really most lives this tradition, of course in a very personal way, but in terms of his just unbelievable advocacy for people and the kind of courage and power, the effectiveness of his advocacy for people, of course, is Senator Ted Kennedy. Behind me is the desk of President John Kennedy, which is Senator Edward Kennedy's desk. I can't think of any Senator who better represents the words I am now about to quote. Bobby Kennedy gave a speech. I believe it was at the University of Kansas. He wanted to talk to students and young people. He wanted to talk about the way in which we measure ourselves as a people. It is one of my favorite speeches, and I quote a part of it: Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children-- In other words, do we measure how we are doing as a country just by the economic indicators. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America, except why we are proud that we are Americans. Mr. President, another speech that Senator Kennedy gave is relevant to our times: There are millions of Americans living in hidden places whose faces and names we never know, but I've seen children starving in Mississippi, idling their lives away in the ghetto, living without hope or future amid the despair on Indian reservations with no jobs and little help. I've seen proud men in the hills of Appalachia who wish only to work in dignity, but the mines are closed and the jobs are gone and no one, neither industry nor labor nor Government, has cared enough to help. Those conditions will change, those children will live only if we dissent. So I dissent, and I know you do, too. Interesting words about crime: Thus, the fight against crime is, in the last analysis, the same as the fight for equal opportunity, or the battle against hunger and deprivation, or the struggle to prevent the pollution of our air and water. It is the fight to preserve the quality of community which is at the root of our greatness, a fight to preserve confidence in ourselves and our fellow citizens, a battle for the quality of our lives. About the importance of work: We need jobs, dignified employment at decent pay. What many today call living-wage jobs. The kind of employment that lets a man-- And I add, and I am sure Senator Kennedy would add, a woman---- say to his community, to his family, to his country and, most important, to himself [or herself], ``I helped to build this country; I'm a participant in this great public venture; I am a man''-- And, I add, ``I am a woman.'' The importance of work-- Community: Today, we can make this a nation where young people do not see the false peace of drugs. Together, we can make this a nation where old people are not shunted off, where regardless of the color of his skin or the place of birth of his father, every citizen will have an equal chance at dignity and decency. Together, Americans are the most decent, generous and compassionate people in the world. Divided, they are collections of islands--islands of blacks afraid of islands of whites; islands of northerners bitterly opposed to islands of southerners, islands of workers warring with islands of businessmen. Government: Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in a different scale. Better the occasional faults of a government living in the spirit of charity than the consistent emissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. Courage--I think the pages will especially like this: It is from numberless, diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up-- Or a woman stands up-- for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. These are really beautiful words. Mr. President, I had an opportunity about a year ago to travel just to a few communities Senator Kennedy visited. I started out in the delta, Mississippi, and actually just this past Friday, a week ago, I went back to Tunica in the delta, just by myself, mainly to teach classes. I went back because there was a marvelous teacher, Mr. Robert Hall, who said a year ago at a community meeting, ``I wish you could come back around graduation time, because only about 50 percent or just a little bit more of our students graduate, and our students need to have more hope.'' In Tunica, the public high school is all African-American, and the private schools are all white. So I came back. I landed, and a man named Mr. Young picked me up at the airport. He said, ``Before you go to the high school, you will be addressing the third and fourth graders.'' I say to the Chair, I thought to myself, addressing the third and fourth graders the last day of school, like a policy address? It didn't sound like this was going to work very well. I went to the elementary school, and the third and fourth graders were all sitting in the auditorium. A principal, a young man, introduced me, and we were high on the stage. I told the principal, ``I think I will not stay on the stage.'' I went out to where the students were. This one young girl helped me out so much, because we were talking about education and school and why you like school. She said, ``I like it because a good education will help me be all I want to be in my life.'' Then 40 hands went up at one time. That is a teacher's dream, and these children had all sorts of dreams--doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, professional wrestlers, boxers, football players--you name it--teachers, on and on and on. I thought to myself, this is what it is about. The only problem is that for too many children, that is the way they start out, and then this just gets taken away from them. The same spark isn't there later on by the time they get to high school. I then went to East L.A. and to Watts and went to public housing projects in Chicago and inner-city Baltimore and Letcher County, KY, and inner-city Minneapolis, Phillips neighborhood, rural Minnesota. The point is there are heroines, and heroines are doing great work. That is my point. The other point is, everywhere I went, I really believe--and these are my words, I summarize it--what part of the people were saying with a lot of dignity was, ``What happened to our national vow of equal opportunity for every child? We don't have it in our communities.'' And the jobs--where are the jobs with decent wages? That is what we want to be able to do. Just think about Robert Kennedy's words, about the importance of work. That is what people are saying today. ``We want to have jobs at decent wages so that we can earn a decent living and we can give our children the care we know they need and deserve.'' Really, Mr. President, as I think about that travel--and travel in any community--this is the focus: On jobs and education, health care, earning a decent living, being able to do well for your children. That is the focus. Different people think about Senator Kennedy's career, Bobby Kennedy, and what he stood for, and different people in different ways, to try to use that inspiring example to do good work. I want to just raise one question before the Senate today, as I feel that this is very connected to Senator Kennedy's life and what he tried to do for our country. And this is the question. I pose this question for my colleagues and the people in the country: How can it be that in the United States of America today--not June of 1968--June of 1998, how can it be the richest, most affluent country in the world, at the peak of our economic performance--we are all writing about how well the economy is doing--how can it be that we are still being told that we cannot provide a good education for every child, that we cannot provide good health care for all of our citizens, that people still cannot find jobs at decent wages that they can support their families on, that we cannot at least reach the goal of making sure that every child who comes to kindergarten is ready to learn? She knows how to spell her name; she knows colors and shapes and sizes; she knows the alphabet; she has been read to widely; and she or he is ready to learn. And we are still being told we can't reach those goals as a nation? And how can it be that in our peak economic performance today, one out of four children under the age of 3 are growing up poor in America--under the age of 3; and one out of every two children of color under the age of 3 are growing up poor in our country? How can this be? How can it be that we have a set of social arrangements that allow children to be the most poverty-stricken group in America? That is a betrayal of our heritage. The impoverishment of so many children is our national disgrace. I just feel--and I am just speaking for myself--as I think back about Robert Kennedy's life, he would surely say today that this is not acceptable and that we can do better. He would probably say, ``We can do betta.'' And I think those words are very important. One final point, if my colleague would indulge me. I had a chance to speak at a baccalaureate at Swarthmore College this last weekend. And I was saying to the students--a lot of people have given up on politics. A lot of people, it is not that they don't care about the issues, they care deeply, they care desperately, but they don't think there is much of a connection between their concerns and our concerns. They read all about money in politics, and they just do not think it is that important. A friend of mine was telling me he was teaching a seminar class on electoral politics, and he was talking about Presidential races and some of his involvement in the past, and students said, ``Well, that's when elections mattered.'' Elections do matter. All of us in public service, I think, believe that, even if we have different viewpoints. I said to the students--and I want to conclude this way, in just talking with young people, not at young people--that I read--and certainly this was the case in Swarthmore College--an incredibly high percentage of students in our colleges and universities are involved in community service, and also high school students. It is not true that young people do not care about community, do not want to serve our country. There is a tremendous amount of good work being done. The problem is that I think many young people say community service is good and politics is unsavory. I just say today, on the floor of the Senate, to the young people: We need you to be mentors and tutors. We need your community service. We need you to volunteer at battered women's shelters. If my wife Sheila was here, she would say, ``Mention that, Paul.'' We need you to be advocates for children. We need you to help other children. We need you to do community work. When you go on to college and universities and get degrees, and you are lawyers and businesspeople, we need you to take some of your skills and give it to the community. We need you to do that. But we also need you to care about public policy. We need you to care about good public policy, and we need you to make sure that our Nation does better. Mr. President, I want to say today--since I wanted to take a few minutes to speak about Robert Kennedy and his life, the meaning of that life, to me and I think to many Americans--I think that the final point that I would want to make--feels right to me, at least--is to say, especially to younger people, the future is not going to belong to those who are content with the present. The future is not going to belong to cynics; it is not going to belong to people who stand on the sidelines; it is not going to belong to people who view politics as a spectator sport. The future is going to belong to people who have passion and people who are willing to make a personal commitment to making our country better. And the future is going to belong--these are not Bobby Kennedy's words; these are Eleanor Roosevelt's words--``The future is going to belong to people who believe in the beauty of their dreams.'' Bobby Kennedy had many beautiful dreams. His life was cut short, and he was not able to realize all those dreams. But his dreams and his hope and his work for our country is as important to our Nation today as it ever was while he was alive. I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia. Not that there are not other Senators who are connected to people back in their States, but the Senator from Georgia, I think, among us, stands out as a Senator who is really connected to people he represents. When he uses the word ``fight,'' I think he will be fighting very hard for people and I think we will have really a historically significant debate on this legislation. This is a very personal issue for people we are talking about, I say to my colleague, their health and the health of their children. So I thank the Senator from Georgia for his very strong words.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, earlier this week, I spoke of a resolution on China that I introduced and that we will offer as an amendment as soon as there is a vehicle to work with, I think probably next week--certainly before the President's visit to China. I wanted to briefly summarize it. Let me just say that I am really pleased to have the support of Senator Lugar, Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy and Senator Feingold, and I think there will be very strong bipartisan support for this, what will be an amendment. The focus is on human rights conditions in China and Tibet. Let me just say I don't come to the floor in a spirit of bashing our President. Since our President will be the first head of state of our country to visit China since the 1989 crackdown where really students-- I see pages here--young people your age were murdered, gave their lives, and for the ``crime'' of just simply calling for the country to be a democracy, I wish the President would not go to Tiananmen Square. I think that is a mistake. My worry is that regardless of what statements the President makes about human rights in China--and I hope he will make some powerful statements--the symbolism of visiting that very sacred place where students were murdered will overwhelm everything else and will be taken, will be used by the Government or will be interpreted by people in China as reflecting a kind of carte blanche support of the Government. I think that would be a mistake. Now, I want to refer to the State Department's China country report this past year on human rights and practices. This is not my report. This is our own State Department report. The Government continues to commit widespread and well documented human rights abuses in violation of internationally accepted norms stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws protecting basic freedoms. I think the Assistant Secretary of State, John Shattuck, who has focused on human rights, has really done some magnificent work, and I think this State Department report is extremely important. What we are going to call on the President to do in our amendment-- and we will have a vote on it next week. I think it is terribly important the Senate go on record before the President's visit, because the President is going to visit China. Whether Senators think he should or not, the President is going to visit. I personally think it is not unimportant to be having a discussion with the Government there. I am not opposed to a discussion. But the question is what kind of discussion, what kind of visit, and what does the President say. At the very minimum, we are going to call upon the President to secure from China's leaders a pledge to remove by a certain date the names on the official reentry black list, which now contains the names of more than 50 Chinese living in the United States who cannot return to China because of their advocacy of democracy and freedom. In other words, there are some people in our country who think the fact that Wei Jingsheng, who was released from prison, is now in our country, exiled in our country is a sign he has his freedom. I doubt any American would feel he or she was free if they were exiled from our country and told, if you come back to the United States, you will be immediately arrested. That hardly represents freedom. So we want to make sure that by a certain date the Chinese Government removes these names on this official reentry blacklist. Second of all, that the President--and let me emphasize this. I emphasized it this morning--visit family members of the victims of the 1989 massacre, many of whom still suffer from political harassment, discrimination, or persecution. I will say in this Chamber: Mr. President, if you are going to visit China, I hope you don't go to Tiananmen Square. I hope you will give some forceful speeches on human rights, but at the very minimum you could convey a very powerful message to the world, to people in China, to the Chinese Government, and to these families if you would visit the family members, or some of the family members of victims of the 1989 massacre, many of whom today suffer from political harassment and discrimination and persecution. I think that would be a powerful message. I believe the President should do this. Third of all, I think the President absolutely has to urge Chinese leaders to engage in a meaningful dialog with the Dalai Lama, with the aim of establishing genuine cultural and religious autonomy in Tibet. In the past year, matters have only gotten worse in Tibet. No one is arguing to the contrary. No one is arguing to the contrary. The President must call upon China to revise its vague, draconian security laws, including the provisions on ``endangering state security,'' which were added to the criminal code in March of 1997; and release unconditionally all political, religious, and labor activists detained for their peaceful, nonviolent involvement. In other words, it is important to understand, when someone like Wei is released, that releasing some individuals doesn't deal with 2,000 political prisoners that you have in prison. That doesn't deal with all sorts of prisoners in forced labor camps. The President has to call upon the Chinese Government to live up to basic human rights standards--that is where our country should be; that is what we should stand for--and review the sentences of more than 2,000 who have been convicted of so-called counterrevolutionary crimes with a view toward granting full amnesty. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because it is the anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square, and I think it is really important that we speak up. I think the Chinese Government would like nothing more than for Americans not to speak up. I think the Chinese Government would like for the world to forget what happened. We cannot. But above and beyond that, I do not want this just to be dramatic in the worst way or symbolic. I think what the President can do if he is going to visit China is not go to Tiananmen Square, certainly visit the families of the victims of Tiananmen Square, and certainly give some powerful speeches and statements while in China which call upon the Chinese Government to release people who are in prison for having committed no other crime than to speak out for democracy and freedom; for the President to say to the Government of China--frankly, we should be saying it to governments all over the world that do this--you cannot persecute people because of their religious practice or because of their political viewpoint. We have to be on the side of human rights throughout the world. I really hope that next week, if not tomorrow--the first opportunity I get I will bring this amendment to the floor --we would get very strong support for this amendment. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Nevada is here, and I will yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes as if in morning business.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I agree with really what both my colleagues have had to say, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and Senator McCain, about what our goal is with this legislation, that we ought to keep our eye on the prize. The goal is to reduce youth smoking and to save the lives of children in our country and, I would argue, also children throughout the world. In that regard, from my perspective, not from the point of view of being macho, I say to my colleague from Arizona, but from a point of view of what I think would be the best public policy that would make a difference, I think we took a step backwards when we did not raise the price increase of cigarettes to $1.50 per pack. Senator Kennedy's amendment, I think, was on the mark because I think if we had done that over 3 years, demand, indeed, being elastic, would have gone down in a very significant way especially with young people. But regardless of the debate on that amendment, we move forward. Senator McCain has labored long and hard to make this a good bill. So have other Senators--Senator Kerry and Senator Hollings and others. But again we all agree that the reduction of youth smoking and the protection of children's lives should be the primary goal of this legislation. So let us just say we are in agreement in that goal. Now, we are forced to come to the floor of the Senate--and I am going to speak about Senator Durbin's look-back provisions--and fight hard for children and young people for some protection because big tobacco for decades has employed legions of marketers who were paid to find ways in which they could addict our children and procure them as future long-term customers. That is exactly what it has been all about. That was the mandate that the advertising agents received from the tobacco industry. This industry poured a tremendous amount of its wealth and its talent in what they viewed as their mission. And, oh boy, were they successful. We have heard it many times now; we hear it every day. Senator McCain just recited the same statistic; 3,000 kids start smoking each day in our country alone, and a third of them, at least a third of them, will die a premature death due to tobacco-related illness. So these tobacco companies know how to market and they know how to do it well. They are experts. They have been experts at whispering in our children's ear and seducing them to smoke. So let us now get these companies to use their expertise to change the tenor of these whispers and to have them induce our children not to smoke. For a long, long, long time--too long a time--they targeted our children, they whispered in their ears, they seduced them to smoke. They have the expertise. Now what we are going to do is provide them with incentives to, in fact, get our children not to smoke. These companies are responsible, or have been responsible, for what Dr. David Kessler calls the ``pediatric disease of smoking.'' Let me repeat that, ``the pediatric disease of smoking.'' That is what the look-back provisions are all about. They are to make the tobacco companies responsible for meeting certain youth-reduction goals, and they hold them financially accountable if they fail to reach these goals. Senator McCain is to be commended for the inclusion of look-back provisions in the bill which we have before us today. But I think, not from the point of view of trying to destroy the industry but from the point of view of how we can, in fact, make sure we have the right incentives to get these companies to make an all-out effort not to target children and, in fact, reduce the number of children who are smoking, I think we have to have stronger and better incentives. That is why I come to the floor to support the Durbin-DeWine amendment. I think what this amendment does, which is most important, is that it makes the payments or the penalties for missing the youth-reduction targets more company specific as opposed to primarily industry-wide. I am worried about the industry-wide approach for a couple of different reasons. First of all, I think what will probably happen is that the industry, as a whole, will just simply say: Look, there is no particular incentive for any one company to really go all-out to reduce teenage smoking and we will just kind of share the additional cost. But, you know what? In the long run, it will be more profitable to do that. The problem is that there is a negative incentive for companies to try to live up to our goal. After all the goal is to reduce teenage smoking. The goal is to dramatically reduce this addiction. The goal is to dramatically reduce the death of people in our country. Therefore, it would seem to me that if some companies are doing all they can to meet that goal but other companies are not, and the industry as a whole doesn't do the job, then everybody ends up having to pay a penalty, and there is simply no incentive for a company to do right. The way it stands now, if a certain company does make the effort to stop children from smoking their cigarettes, but the rest of the industry doesn't, then the company that did make the positive attempt is punished more than any other. First, they are hit by the industry wide look back payments even though they made every good-faith effort to do the right thing. And, second of all, by doing the right thing they are financially burdened by the loss of their youth market. So it seems to me the look-back provisions in the bill as they now stand are flawed, and I think to make the incentives or disincentives more company-based, more specific-company focused, is a much more effective public policy way of reaching our goal, which is to have a dramatic reduction of teenage smoking. The Durbin-DeWine amendment is also, I think, a strong improvement because it raises the 10-year reduction goal from 60 percent to 67 percent. In our committee, the Labor and Human Resources Committee, which for a short period of time had jurisdiction over this legislation, Senator Kennedy had an amendment which passed the committee which would have raised the goal to 80 percent, an 80-percent reduction in youth smoking. We heard from any number of different experts who said you can do that. We can do that and we should. This is truly one place where we ought to set the bar as high as we can because we are talking about children's lives. Children's lives are precious to all of us. So I think by going to 67 percent, we have made a solid improvement that is easily doable and I think we should set the goal this high. Let me just finish up this way. I now come back to why I come to the floor to support the Durbin-DeWine amendment, which I think is a much more effective way of reducing youth smoking. I think the look-back provisions as they now stand are flawed. I do not think they are going to work well. So we want to have a piece of legislation which will be as strong as possible and will work well. I say to my colleague from Arizona, no company gets put out of existence. Every single company that makes a good-faith, all-out effort to reach these achievable goals and reaches them, will not have any problem at all. Those companies will have no look-back payments to make. It is simple. There is no reason, no inherent reason in this amendment that Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine have brought to the floor, why any companies would have to worry about going out of existence if, in fact, they make a commitment to live up to these goals. And that is what it is all about. I think the language of money is, in fact, the only language to which this industry has responded. While the pleas of parents and children and dying victims might fall on deaf ears, and they have for a long time, the clinking of coins is a sound to which they are most surely attuned. So I think right now we have some provisions in the legislation that I do not think will work that well. I think this amendment that Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine have brought to the floor makes a lot more sense. Because if companies choose to use their marketing powers to discourage teenagers from smoking, which is exactly what this look-back provision will encourage them to do, they will avoid any look-back payments and at the same time they will improve America's long-term health. I think that is what this legislation is all about. Since I have some additional time here, I want to let my colleagues know that I will be introducing an amendment to extend the advertising protections that children here in the United States will enjoy, to extend those protections to children around the world. My understanding is that the amendment tree is filled right now, but I want to talk a little bit about this amendment. Again, as I have already said, the purpose of this legislation is the reduction of youth smoking. I believe the amendment I will introduce will further that goal and because it will it should have strong support from this body. What I am concerned about are some of the provisions in the legislation that deal with the international activities of this renegade industry. I think those provisions are inadequate. What I want to do is to make sure that the advertising and marketing restrictions that we have in this legislation also apply to the international scope of these tobacco companies just the way Senator McCain's bill was written when it passed out of Commerce Committee by a 19-to-1 vote. So, for example, if we are going to say: Look, industry, you are not going to be able to use cartoon characters to market your deadly products here in the United States of America; I would like to say to these companies: You are not going to be able to use these cartoon characters to market these deadly products in any market overseas. I'd like to provide a little context for my colleagues. I will address this subject in more depth later on, but I wanted to draw from some interesting documents my State of Minnesota was able to obtain when Minnesota forced the tobacco industry to disgorge documents so revealing that the industry has been hiding them for years. An R.J. Reynolds document, penned in 1976, reads: Evidence is now available to indicate that the 14-18 year old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. RJR-(tobacco) must soon establish a successful new brand in this market if our position in the industry is to be maintained in the long term. Or this from Philip Morris, in 1981: Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens . . . The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris. The amendment I will introduce will basically say we need to put our foot down. We ought to say: No more. No more addicting of children. Tobacco industry, you need to cease and desist from diabolic marketing tactics which target children, which addict children, and which ultimately lead to the premature death of too many people, here and abroad. Some statistics about what Dr. Kessler has called the pediatric disease of smoking. The World Health Organization projects a staggering global death and disease burden related to tobacco use. The WHO estimates that one-third of the world's population over the age of 15 currently smokes--one-third. This is equal to 1.1 billion smokers. Of those 1.1 billion smokers, over 90 percent live outside the United States and over 70 percent live in developing countries. Let me simply mention a couple of other interesting statistics that I will again get a chance to develop in this argument a little later on. I will give just a few examples. Over the last decade in which U.S. sales have declined by 17 percent, U.S. cigarette exports have grown by a staggering 260 percent. In 1996 alone, U.S. manufacturers exported a record 243.9 billion cigarettes--243.9 billion cigarettes. I have to say to my colleague from Arizona, I am not out here to bash, but I honestly and truthfully believe and can marshal evidence--and I will when we get to debate this amendment--that big tobacco has been absolutely shameless in its efforts to addict children, not only in our country but abroad as well. For example, if we are going to say, look, this is about reducing teenage smoking, this is about saving children's lives, I think a child is a child. We are talking about all of God's children. These advertisements have been shameful. They have been irresponsible. But, unfortunately, they also have been very successful. It is no surprise that when U.S. companies go into overseas markets, teenage smoking rates quickly climb. In Russia, from 1992 to 1993 smoking rates among 13 to 16-year-olds increased from 31.5 percent to 42.5 percent as a result of targeting efforts by tobacco companies. Smoking rates among male Korean teenagers rose from 18 percent to 30 percent in just 1 year after the entry of U.S. tobacco companies. Let me repeat that: Smoking rates among male Korean teenagers rose from 18 to 30 percent in just 1 year after the entry of U.S. tobacco companies. Just 2 years after Taiwan's cigarette market was opened to U.S. companies, the smoking rate among high school students increased 50 percent. In both Taiwan and Japan, U.S. brands jumped from 1 percent to 20 percent of the market in less than 2 years. The United States National Cancer Policy Board has noted that the introduction of U.S. cigarettes in Japan ``had the regrettable effect of contributing to an increase in overall tobacco consumption, especially among those under the age of 20.'' That is from the U.S. National Cancer Policy Board. My amendment will simply state that American tobacco companies, and those they control, are prohibited from selling, distributing or marketing tobacco products to children overseas, just as they will be prohibited from such activities in the United States. I have to say to you, Mr. President, that the good news is the bill that was passed by the Commerce Committee by a 19-to-1 vote had basically the same language as this amendment. And I say let us get that language back in the bill. My concern, as a United States Senator from Minnesota, is how can we dramatically reduce smoking among teenagers, among young people? How can we stop this shameless targeting of kids? Again, we had document after document after document. I know my colleague who is presiding has debated this. He has raised important questions--I always give that to him--and he argues his case forcefully about lawyers and lawyers' fees and all the rest. Fair enough. We have debated that, and we will debate it again. I will say this: In the Minnesota court case which was recently settled, it is incredible the number of documents and the amount of information we were able to get out before the public. Those documents tell a very disturbing story of an industry which in a very shameless way targeted kids and went all out to addict children. What I will be doing with this amendment that I will offer is to say, look, if we are going to be concerned about marketing to children in our country, then we also ought to be concerned about it with children abroad. The United States of America ought not to be known around the world, especially in these poor developing countries, as a country with an industry that is a leading exporter of death. That ought not to be our identity with people in those countries. I think the same marketing restrictions should apply. You no longer can use cartoon characters to push the buttons of children and addict them to tobacco in our country, and you are not going to do it in other countries either. That will be the gist of the amendment I intend to introduce. Mr. President, I do not see any colleagues on the floor, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say to my colleague from Arizona I had a chance yesterday to speak in the Chamber, and I have been wanting to say this while he is in the Chamber. I read a very eloquent and really beautiful piece in the Washington Post he had written about Senator Goldwater, who was, I suppose, on the opposite side of the spectrum from where I stand, but I talked about how especially in recent years--I never knew Senator Goldwater, never had a chance to talk with him, but in recent years as I have read about him and seen some of the things he said, I have so much respect for the way in which he kind of tied together personal, intellectual and political integrity. I say to my colleague from Arizona, who will probably disagree with the rest of what I say over the next several minutes, I do believe when it comes to conscience and integrity we do have somebody who lives up to that very high standard Senator Goldwater set. And that is Senator McCain from Arizona. The only thing I didn't agree with in the article the Senator wrote was when Senator McCain said he will just be a mere footnote in Senate history. I do not agree with that. I think Senator McCain is an enormously important force here in the Senate and in the country, and I better not go any further with that because I am about to disagree with the rest of what he said. Privilege of the Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Vang, who as an intern in his last day in our office, be allowed to be in the Chamber during the debate today on this piece of legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I only heard about his remarks. Let me thank my colleague from Arizona for coming to the floor to speak. I am sure we will hear from Senator McCain as well, if we haven't already. As a Senator, I suppose, on the other side of the ideological continuum--if that is, in fact, even relevant; sometimes I don't think it is. I don't think politics has that much to do with left to right to center; I think it has more to do with trying to do well for people, and we have all reached different conclusions about how to do that. But it is about public service. I just want to say to the Goldwater family that I think Barry Goldwater really set a standard, especially when it comes to personal integrity and intellectual integrity and political integrity. And I think people in our country really yearn for that. His outspokenness, and especially his courage, and especially in recent years his willingness to speak out, even after no longer being in office, to continue to serve our country I think really is inspiring for all of us. I wish to add my words to the really fine words of the Senator from Arizona. (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 238 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I gather that my colleague, Senator Kyl, has taken some time to speak about Senator Goldwater.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to introduce a resolution today that I will send to the desk. This will be on behalf of--I will do it after my remarks--myself and Senators Durbin and Leahy. This is a resolution calling upon the President to make human rights a major priority in his June visit to China. Probably later on we will introduce this resolution in the form of a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the Department of Defense bill. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling upon the President to make human rights a major priority in his June visit to China. Thus far, the Administration has not articulated any concrete goals or objectives for the upcoming summit, other than to demonstrate a friendly relationship between the U.S. and China. Preliminary negotiations with the Chinese leadership on the summit agenda indicate that Beijing is unlikely to make any major policy concessions when it comes to human rights. I am not opposed--I think I need to say that again--to high-level discussions with the Chinese leadership. In fact, I think they can be very useful. But I am worried about the symbolism of a Presidential visit, and I think it may backfire if the President does not continue to speak out about our strong concerns when it comes to China's human rights record. The summit could be interpreted by many as legitimizing policies of the Chinese regime which, despite some legal reforms, continue to repress religious freedom and political freedom as well as political dissent. The Chinese have avidly sought a Presidential visit because it signals to all at home and abroad that the U.S. has muffled its opposition to, and endorses cooperation with the Beijing government, the same government that continues to deny its citizens basic human rights and freedoms. By agreeing to a Presidential visit, without significant human rights preconditions--not merely token gestures--I fear that the Administration may be squandering a tremendous source of leverage with the Chinese government. Since the May 1994 decision to delink trade and human rights, the Administration has not yet developed an effective bilateral or multilateral strategy for promoting meaningful improvements in human rights conditions in China and Tibet. I was deeply disappointed this year that despite a 95 to 5 vote in support here in the Senate, the Administration did not sponsor a resolution on China's human rights record at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, which is exactly the place you would bring such a resolution forward. We didn't do so. Mr. Wei, China's best known political dissident, has pointed out that the Chinese people view the commission's work as ``barometer'' to the human rights commission which met in Geneva by which to judge whether there is any international backing for their democracy movement in their country of China. Our current policy may send a message to those brave men and women who risk their lives to campaign for democracy and freedom that the United States is not behind them. By the way, I apply the standard to human rights or violations of human rights in all kinds of countries, be they left or be they right; it makes no difference. In a speech that Mr. Wei presented at the Commission in Geneva, he recalled, ``Last year, when the Commission failed to adopt a resolution on China, my prison guards laughed at me and said: `Look at your so- called friends. They betrayed you,''' He went on to say, ``This is precisely the time when support from our friends is most needed. And this is precisely the time that Western democracies have chosen to withdraw their support.'' The Administration claims that China has made progress in the area of human rights. In my view, this is simply not true. The recent steps taken by the Chinese government are merely token, cosmetic gestures-- diplomatic bargaining tactics that do not amount to a more open, free society. The overall pattern of human rights violations remains fundamentally unchanged. While I wholeheartedly welcome China's announcement to sign the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights, until it is actually signed and ratified, it is not fully binding. Two months after their pledge to sign, the Chinese have still not specified when they will sign or ratify this treaty. Even more importantly, once ratified, the Chinese must implement this treaty, which will require major changes in domestic laws and policies. So, it will be a long process before this covenant translates into concrete change or greater freedom for the Chinese people. A mere non-binding verbal agreement to sign should not be trumpeted as a huge victory and certainly did not warrant dropping the Geneva resolution. That is what happened. Our Government, the administration, said to me that we are not going to go forward because the Chinese have agreed to sign this international convenant on civil and political rights. Several months have gone by. They haven't signed it. Even if they sign it, there is no evidence that they are necessarily going to implement a nonbinding international agreement, and it should not be a reason for having brought a resolution protesting their violation of human rights before the Geneva commission on civil rights. As my colleague Senator Biden said, ``I don't agree with Senator Wellstone and others.'' The presiding Chair might not as well, when it comes to linking human rights with trade policy. That is too blunt an instrument. But if there was ever a place to bring this up, it should have been at the human rights gathering; it should have been in Geneva. I am very happy that both my dear friend Wei Jingsheing and Wang Dan are in good health, safe and out of prison. However, we must be clear. These men were not released. They were forced into exile. Should either of them return to their homeland, they would be thrown into prison upon arrival. The Chinese government maintains a re-entry blacklist which contains the names of more than fifty Chinese citizens living in the U.S. Just last month two Chinese American democracy advocates were detained and deported upon their arrival in China. The forced exile of Wei and Wang does not represent systematic change. In early 1995 Wang wrote, ``A society still needs idealists--people who are willing to sacrifice themselves to uphold the basic ideals of freedom and democracy.'' I have to tell you that I don't know how they do it in these countries. I don't know how they do it. Maybe if it were I, myself, and I lived in a repressive country, I would speak out. Maybe I would have the courage to do it--maybe. But if I thought that my children, or my spouse, my loved ones, could also be rounded up, that they could be imprisoned, that they could be tortured, that they could be murdered-- which is too often the case in too many countries; there are at least 70 countries that systematically practice torture in our world today--I don't know whether I could ever speak up. I think I would be afraid to, given what could happen to my loved ones. It is cruel irony that these brave men's exiles are being used as evidence of China's progress. Human rights advocates in China and around the world fear that the release of high profile dissidents could be used to justify a reduction in international pressure for systematic change in China, where according to the government's own count, some 2,000 people remain imprisoned for the crime of ``counterrevolution,'' now called ``endangering state security.'' Thousands more--political, labor, and religious dissidents--are serving terms of up to three years of ``re- education through labor'' without trial. The releases of Wei and Wang are clearly political calculations by the Chinese leadership, who have become adept at trading well-known prisoners in pre-summit diplomatic bargaining. Engaging the Chinese in this game of saving face and trading diplomatic favors sends out a message that we are not serious about human rights. For years before the world ever saw the televised massacre at Tiananmen Square, peaceful demonstrations in Lhasa have been crushed by the PLA. Once imprisoned Tibetans, particularly monks and nuns, face unimaginable torture at the hands of prison officials. Furthermore, the Chinese government's policy of forced migration of Han Chinese into Tibet has rendered Tibetans a minority in cities such as Lhasa, where they are marginalized and alienated. As the Chinese presence grows stronger, Tibet's unique culture faces the threat of extinction. The Tibetan people have remained steadfast in their commitment to the path of non-violence. However, some Tibetan exiles are growing impatient, as indicated by one man's recent death through self- immolation. In a desperate attempt to draw the attention of the international community to the worsening situation in Tibet, Thubten Ngodup, a 50-year-old Tibetan exile in Delhi, India, set himself on fire. In a recent meeting with President Jiang Zemin, Secretary Albright brought up the subject of Tibet and the American desire for a dialogue between Dalai Lama and the Chinese leadership. The Chinese sharply dismissed the Dali Lama and flat out refused to enter into negotiations in order to bring about a peaceful settlement to the Tibetan issue. The resolution I am submitting outlines concrete steps that would indicate a serious commitment to human rights concerns. In the context of the upcoming summit, we call upon the administration, at the highest level, to urge the Chinese leadership to revise their vague, draconian security laws, including provisions on ``endangering state security'' added to the criminal code in March 1997; to release unconditionally large numbers of imprisoned political, religious, and labor activists; and to review the sentences of more than 2,000 prisoners sentenced for ``counterrevolutionary'' activities, a crime that itself has been abolished. With regards to religious freedom, the Administration should encourage the Chinese leadership to abolish the requirement that all religious sites register with the official Religious Affairs Bureau; to lift government mandated quotas on the number of monks and nuns in monasteries and nunneries; and to immediately reinstate all monks and nuns expelled from their monasteries and nunneries for failing to denounce the Dalai Lama. This resolution also calls upon the administration to encourage the Chinese leadership to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama with the aim of establishing genuine cultural and religious autonomy in Tibet. Another concern is the symbolic significance of the President's official arrival ceremony which will take place in Tiananmen Square. We ask the President to make time in his schedule to meet with family members of at least one of the victims of the 1989 massacre, many of whom still suffer from political harassment, discrimination or persecution. We also ask the President to secure from the Chinese a pledge to get rid of the re-entry blacklist, which contains the names of more than fifty Chinese citizens living in the U.S. who cannot return to China. Allowing pro-democracy activists, journalists or labor organizers to return to China would be a significant gesture by the Chinese authority. Finally, until the Chinese leadership takes serious, concrete action on the concerns outlined above, we would strongly oppose lifting the trade sanctions imposed after the 1989 crackdown on demonstrators at Tiananmen Square. Some say that we cannot influence what happens in China, that the country is too proud, too large, and that changes take too long. I disagree. For years we have pressured the Chinese on human rights, and to let up now is tantamount to defeat for the cause of human justice. Dissidents who have been freed and come to the United States have thanked advocates for keeping them alive, by keeping the pressure on, and focusing attention on their plight. It is our duty and in the interest to make the extra effort required to promote freedom and democracy in China, and to bring it into compliance with international standards on human rights. Let me just make one other point. For years, before the world ever saw the televised massacre of Tiananmen Square, Peaceful demonstrations in Tibet have been crushed. Once imprisoned, Tibetans, particularly monks and nuns, face unimaginable torture at the hands of prison officials. Furthermore, the Chinese Government's forced migration of Han Chinese into Tibet has rendered the Tibetans a minority in their own country, and as the Chinese presence grows stronger an stronger, Tibet's unique culture basically faces extinction. So let me just be crystal clear. Whether it is in China or Tibet as well, we ought to be speaking up for human rights. Jiang Zemin, in a recent meeting with Secretary Albright, made it crystal clear when the subject of Tibet was brought up that the Chinese are not interested in sitting down in any negotiations with the Dalai Lama and are unwilling to bring about any kind of peaceful settlement to the Tibetan issue. So in this resolution, this is what we call upon the administration to do at the highest level: to urge the Chinese leadership to revise their vague, draconian security laws, including provisions on ``endangering state security,'' added to the Criminal Code in March of 1997; to urge the Chinese to release unconditionally a large number of imprisoned political, religious, and labor activists, and to review the sentences of more than 2,000 prisoners sentenced for ``counterrevolutionary activities,'' a crime that has been abolished. With regard to religious freedom, the administration should encourage the Chinese leadership to abolish the requirement that all religious sites be registered with the official Religious Affairs Bureau, to lift Government mandated quotas on the number of monks and nuns in monasteries and nunneries, and to immediately reinstate monks and nuns failing to denounce the Dalai Lama. This resolution also calls upon the administration to encourage the Chinese leadership to engage in meaningful dialog with the Dalai Lama with the aim of establishing genuine cultural and religious and political freedom and autonomy in Tibet. Another concern is the symbolic significance of the President's official arrival ceremony, which will take place in Tiananmen Square. We ask the President to make time in this schedule to meet with family members of at least one of the victims of the 1989 massacre, many of whom still suffer from political harassment, discrimination, and persecution. We also ask the President to secure from the Chinese a pledge to get rid of the reentry blacklist which contains the names of more than 50 Chinese citizens living in the United States who cannot return to China. Allowing prodemocracy journalists or labor organizers to return to China would be a significant gesture by the Chinese authority. Finally, until the Chinese leadership takes serious, concrete action on the concerns outlined above, we would strongly oppose lifting the trade sanctions imposed after the 1989 crackdown on demonstrators at Tiananmen Square. As a U.S. Senator, I cannot forget the courage of those students, cannot forget the murder of those students, and cannot forget their struggle then and their struggle now for democracy in their country. It took us a little time, but that is why I am really pleased that I believe our Government has really come out on the side of the students in Indonesia, and I think we are making a difference. Mr. President, some say that we cannot influence what happens in China; the country is too proud, too large, and the changes take too long. I disagree. For years, we pressured the Chinese on human rights, and to let up now is tantamount to defeat for the cause of human justice. Dissidents who have been freed and have come to the United States have thanked advocates for keeping them alive by keeping the pressure on, by focusing on their plight. It is our duty and it is in our interests to make the extra effort required to promote freedom and democracy in China and to bring it into compliance with international standards on human rights. Mr. President, there will be a great deal of activity this week that will be focusing on the President's upcoming visit, and I really hope that when Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy and I bring this resolution to the floor as a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, we will get a very strong vote. I really do believe, whether it is in China or whether it is in Indonesia or whether it is in North Korea or whether it is in a whole lot of countries, the former Burma, you name them, there simply has to be a way that we, as a nation, lead the way. There has to be a way that the United States of America can be there to support people. We cannot do everything. We don't directly intervene in all of these countries. But it saddens me that all too often we just simply turn our gaze away from people who are willing to almost stand alone to challenge repressive governments. We ought to be more on their side. We ought to be speaking out more about human rights. We ought to be speaking out more about the importance of democracy in other countries. I really believe that the President's visit to China will be a test case. If the President of the United States of America is going to go to Tiananmen Square--I wish he wouldn't. I wish he would not do so, but if he is going to visit, then he needs to visit with the families of those who gave their lives for freedom in that country. He needs to speak out about human rights. He needs to use the leverage of our country and the leadership of the United States of America to make a difference. We just can't say, well, markets, markets, markets; there will be all sorts of markets; we will make all kinds of money; it will be great for the business community. Great. I come from a State that is an export State. The Presiding Officer comes from a State where agriculture is very important. Agriculture is very important in Minnesota. I am really proud of agriculture. I am proud of the business sector in our State. But these are not mutually exclusive goals. I am not arguing that we are not interested in trade. I am not arguing that we don't look to future markets. But what I am saying is that it just makes me uneasy as an American citizen and it makes me uneasy as a Senator that we focus exclusively on commercial ties, exclusively on markets, exclusively on money to be made, all of which is fine up to the point where we just turn our gaze away from human rights violations, countries that systematically round up and imprison people because they speak out. That is wrong. That is wrong. That is not what our country is about. Since I have time to speak about human rights today, I will finish this way. All of us, I think, develop our viewpoints based upon our own life experience. I was a teacher for 20 years before having the opportunity to become a Senator, before the people of Minnesota gave me this chance, and I used to ask students to write on the same essay question at the end of every take-home paper, and the question was: Why do you think about what you think about politics? I never graded it. I just wanted them to think about what shaped their viewpoint--why do they care about some things and not others? Why do they consider themselves a liberal or conservative, whatever label you use? Was it their religion? Was it their family, mother or father? Was it some kind of powerful, crystallized experience where maybe--I remember one student wrote an essay and he talked about how his brother was born with disabilities, developmental disabilities, and that just completely changed his life and his family's life. Their whole view about whether or not maybe some people needed help, their whole view about health care policy changed on the basis of what he saw with his brother and his struggle and the struggles of his family. Well, for me, I don't come to the floor to try to make life difficult for our President. I don't come to the floor to criticize for the sake of criticizing. But my father, who is no longer alive, fled persecution in Russia, and the one thing that he talked about more than anything else was the importance of freedom and how much he loved our country. Well, I come from a background of an immigrant who fled persecution. I come from a background of an immigrant who fled persecution from Russia whose family was probably murdered by Stalin, who at age 17 left Russia and never saw his family again. I don't even know why I am talking about this on the floor of the Senate, but I think it applies somehow. At the very end of my dad's life he had Parkinson's disease, and we would spend the night with him. Sheila and I would rotate spending the night with him. Here he lived in the United States of America for 60 years and spoke perfect English, but all of his dreaming was in Russian. But it was not good dreams. It was shouting, it was torment, it was agony. As a son, I just cried. I didn't know what he was saying. I don't know the language. But I knew that this was anguish. What I always believed, and what I believe as I speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate today, is that this is what happens when you can never go back to your country, when you never can see your family again. Americans, thank God, don't have that experience too often. What does it mean when you can never go back and see your family again? What does it mean when you probably know, because you work for the U.S. Government, and my dad worked for the Voice of America, that your mother and father and sister were probably murdered? We should support human rights in other countries. We should be supporting human rights in China. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a ``Dear Colleague'' from myself and Senator Durbin, and a letter, dated May 29, 1998, that I sent to President Clinton, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to explain my concerns about the conference report on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). I want to first say that I was pleased to be able to vote for the Senate bill in March. This bill will continue the important work that was begun under the first ISTEA. It represents a comprehensive package to address all transportation needs. It continues the fundamental goal of the original ISTEA, which is to afford state and local governments greater flexibility in allocating transportation dollars. I believe that investing in our transportation infrastructure is essential if we are to remain economically competitive. Today, our highways and transit systems need continued support in order to meet our commercial and personal transportation requirements. I also want to thank all the people in Minnesota who have educated me along the way on transportation issues. In addition to the ``traditional highway advocates''--the city, county and state officials, engineers and contractors--I have been working closely with community organizers, architects, preservationists, bicyclers and community activists. Though some may have questions about this or that provision, all of these people support ISTEA. ISTEA will guarantee that a federal investment will be made in maintaining and expanding Minnesota's highways, transit and other transportation related programs. I am pleased that several transit projects have been proposed in Minnesota, including the Twin Cities Transitway. Improving existing transit and building new transit will be crucial as we see our population in the state continue to grow. It is clear that, as our region continues to grow, we will need alternatives to the traditional car and driver commuting. Transportation is critical to our daily lives. We cannot separate how people and goods are transported from the many other parts of their social and economic lives. It is important to work together to ensure that we have a fully integrated, safe and environmentally sound intermodal transportation system in the State of Minnesota and the country. ISTEA does this through the MPO, ATP and STIP process. The planning provisions of the bill put the major decision-making back at the local level where it belongs. In addition, the conference report contains language that allows for appropriate meaningful public participation in the MPO process. While the MPO process has worked well, this new language will make the process that much more responsive to the communities that are most affected by their decisions. Unfortunately despite these facts, I cannot vote for this conference report for a number of reasons. First, the conferees have reportedly selected major offsets that I strongly oppose. While we do not have all the details, I believe the bill assumes $15.5 billion in savings from denial of compensation claims by veterans with smoking-related illnesses. The veterans health cuts are especially troubling. I believe it is an outrage that funding that could have gone to meet the many pressing needs of this country's veterans, will instead be used as an offset for spending in this bill. For years, veterans have been told that cuts to the Veterans Administration (VA)--and particularly cuts to veterans health care-- were necessary to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. Last year's balanced budget agreement flatlined the VA budget over six years. It provided virtually no allowance for medical inflation, which in years past has come to roughly $500 million per year. But Congress can no longer pretend that its failure to provide for veterans' programs is a lack of resources. First of all, the budget is now balanced. Indeed, this year we have a projected surplus of somewhere in the range of $50 billion. Second, in this case Congress is taking resources away from veterans themselves. If Congress insists on denying benefits to veterans who were hooked on smoking during their military service, there is no excuse for transferring those savings outside the VA. I can think of a lot of areas in the veterans budget where we could have put those savings to good use. For example, I have a bill to provide compensation for veterans who were exposed to radiation during their military service. I've been told these atomic vets cannot be compensated because offsets would have to come from elsewhere in the VA budget. Yet this ISTEA bill seizes upon an enormous offset from that very VA budget and dedicates those funds to transportation. We could certainly provide more resources for veterans health care, which is facing a severe funding crisis. Without additional funding the VA health care system will ``hit the wall,'' VA Undersecretary for Health Dr. Kenneth Kizer has testified. This particular offset makes a mockery of the Senate's professed concern for veterans and for deficit reduction. I have real doubts about the various estimates of savings from denial of smoking-related claims. I know others do as well. Nobody knows how much VA will save by denying these benefits to veterans. But the conferees have apparently opted for the highest possible number. This offset makes very clear what some of us have long suspected. The reason veterans programs have been cut in recent years is not deficit reduction. It's not for the purpose of balancing the budget. It's not because full funding would require a tax increase. It's none of those things. It's because this Republican Congress places a lower priority on veterans than on other areas of the budget. We cannot get around that fact. Congress would rather use these savings elsewhere. Whether we like it or not, the legislation we pass in this body makes it very clear what our priorities are. I, for one, think we need to reorder those priorities. I think we need to put more emphasis on the needs of working families. And in this case, I think we need to put a lot more emphasis on veterans who have faithfully served their country. I will also vote no on this bill, as much as I believe in its goals, because of the way it attempts a resolution on an historic land use dispute in my State regarding the management of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, without adequate Congressional consideration or debate. Congressmen Bruce Vento and James Oberstar this week reached a last-minute, independent agreement on a proposal to change future management of the BWCAW. The proposed agreement would re-open two portages in the BWCAW to motorized transport in return for closing two small, pristine wilderness lakes to future motorized use. I regret that this agreement was reached in this way, at the last minute in the House-Senate conference committee, without having been debated by either the House of Senate. As I have said elsewhere, I would have preferred an open, fair, public Congressional debate on my legislation, patterned after Minnesota mediation proposals, and the major alternatives offered by my colleagues. I remain convinced that my compromise plan was a viable one which carefully balanced the interests of all parties. I do not think that last-minute private deals like this one are an appropriate way to conduct policy, especially on a major issue which has so divided our stated. Such deals do nothing to improve Minnesotans' confidence in the fairness of the legislative process. Mr. President, I want to reiterate my support for the overall objectives of this legislation. I believe investing in our transportation infrastructure is essential if we are to remain economically competitive. Today, our highways and transit systems need continued support in order to meet our commercial and personal transportation requirements. It is therefore with deep regret that I will be voting against this conference report. I believe that we could have done much better and produced a bill that continued federal support for transportation and transit infrastructure without the problems that this bill has created.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think they are right. There are too many veterans out on the streets that shouldn't be. There are too many veterans that are struggling with PTSD that are not treated. There are too many veterans that, as they get older, are not clear what care there will be. We have a flat-line budget that is not going to work for veterans. I think it is a big mistake to have taken this money out of what should have been an investment in veterans health care. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we will vote on ISTEA today. I know a number of colleagues want a voice vote. I can feel the pressure building. We are about to leave. I say to colleagues, we are not going to voice vote the bill. We can't have a voice vote. This is an important piece of legislation, and a whole lot has happened in conference committee. Frankly, all of us should be on record voting nay or yea, yea or nay. For my own part, I want to talk about this piece of legislation. There are two points I want to make. This is a very important piece of legislation. I thank Minnesotans for all of their guidance. There is much about this legislation that I believe in, especially the important investment in infrastructure. I think it is a balanced approach. However, I will not vote for this bill, and I will not vote for this bill for two reasons. First of all, I won't vote for this bill because--we still don't know what the offsets are, but it looks like much of it comes from VA. I say that because I believe it is an outrage that the money that could have gone into veterans health care--and I could go on for hours about what the gaps are in veterans health care-- will, instead, be used as an offset in this legislation. I also believe that too much of this spending will take the place of other discretionary, affecting the most vulnerable citizens in this country. The second reason that I cannot vote for this piece of legislation, as much as I believe in much of it, is the process. I think at the very end of this process there were several decisions made, one having to do with a sensitive environmental land dispute issue in Minnesota, the Boundary Waters, and I respectfully disagree with the way this is being done. I will not do any bashing on the floor of the Senate. I don't want to do that. But I will not support this piece of legislation, I want to go on record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter printed from the Paralyzed Veterans of America. They say, ``Don't Rob America's Veterans Again.''

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I appreciate his gracious personal remarks. I am proud to have his friendship. And the respect is mutual. The respect is mutual. Second of all, let me say to my colleague that I am pleased to find out that he did not say it exactly as it seemed to be reported in Roll Call. And I think his clarification is terribly important. I might not agree with his analogy, but I understand exactly what he is saying. And I think he has clarified the record. Third, let me just simply say to my colleague, and to other colleagues as well, that we have here a man, James Hormel, who has been nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr. Hormel comes to the U.S. Senate with enormous qualifications: dean of the students of the University of Chicago Law School, on the boards of such diverse groups as the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Swarthmore College, a generous giver, committed to community, a dedicated public servant. Frankly, the list goes on and on. On May 23, 1997, a year ago, this very Senate unanimously confirmed him to serve as an alternative representative on the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. General Assembly. He has done a lot of marvelous work in human rights as well. Mr. President, the fact that there is an article in the paper that says that the President nominated Mr. Hormel and believes that this was important to the gay community does not in any way, shape, or form suggest that Mr. Hormel has a personal agenda. The fact that Mr. Hormel talked about a country that seems to have done a great job of moving away from discrimination against gays and lesbians as a very attractive country to him does not mean in any way, shape, or form that he would use this position to promote his own personal agenda. In fact, Jim Hormel has clearly and publicly stated that he would ``not use the Office of the Ambassador to advocate any personal views.'' Mr. President, I simply have to say to my colleagues there is a personal part to this and a political part. For the personal part, here is a letter to Senator Lott: I am writing to you to urge you to bring James C. Hormel's nomination as Ambassador to Luxembourg to a vote on the floor of the Senate. The stone-walling of this appointment reflects a flagrant disregard to all that we hold precious in a democratic society. If he is voted down then so be it, but not to allow due process to take place is clearly an indictment of the branch of our government that seems at times to be inclined to exhibit its own peculiar form of despotism. The President has nominated him and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has recommended him. Let the process take place. I am a sixty three year old retired counseling psychologist. I am the mother of six children and the step- mother of three. I have 17 grandchildren. Thirteen of those grandchildren I share with James Hormel. I have known Jim for 46 years and for ten of those years I was married to him. During those ten years we had five children. And she goes on to say, For many of those years he tried his hardest to live what was a lie. Of course, you might say I was the ``injured party,'' but I grew to understand the terrible prejudice and hatred that he knew he would have to face, that he has faced and is facing as he goes through the difficult process that this nomination and its opponents have put him through. James Hormel is my dear friend. I care deeply about him and have great admiration for his courage in being open about his homosexuality and his willingness to put himself on the line in accepting this nomination. James Hormel's former wife. Mr. President, let me simply say to my colleagues that this is really an outrage. I understand what my colleague from Oklahoma had to say, but I will have an amendment when we come back that I will put on the first bill I can after the tobacco bill, which will say that the Senate ought to bring this up. The majority leader, we owe it to him. Now, my colleague from Oklahoma has been clear on his position. I accept that. But I say to my colleagues that this man is eminently qualified. That is crystal clear, I think, to many of us, the majority of us. This man should be able to serve. And if, in fact, the reason he is being stopped--and this is what I fear; and I am not speaking to my colleague from Oklahoma--but if he is being stopped because of discrimination, because of the fact that he is gay, then let that come out on the Senate floor. Let us have the debate. And let's have colleagues come out here, no more holds, and speak directly to this nomination. If you oppose him, then oppose him on the floor of the Senate. My colleague from Oklahoma has been clear about his position, but let's have that debate. We owe James Hormel this. We owe the U.S. Senate this. This institution is on trial. If we don't bring this forward, I say to the majority leader, then I think we have to look at ourselves in the mirror. We need to bring this nomination forward. We need to have this debate. And we need to vote up or down. I believe elementary decency dictates that we do that. I will start having amendments on bills that will call on the majority leader to bring this nomination to the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask the Chair to let me know when I have used 5 minutes, because I have another matter I want to discuss? I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, out of courtesy, I defer to my colleague from Oklahoma, and I ask unanimous consent that I be able to follow him for 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to speak after Senator Dorgan for 10 minutes.