Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. We are going to have a final rollcall vote on the bill; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be brief. I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Texas. I was going to respond in a similar fashion. I will not go over what my colleague from Massachusetts has said. I do not always agree with what the Senator from Texas says, but I like the way he says it. He makes his points in a kind of hard- hitting way, but also with some humor. I think they connect well with people. But I look at this in a very different way. I would like to thank the appropriators for responding to a very real problem. I do not think the appropriators in any way, shape, or form, Democrats or Republicans, are attempting to raid the Medicare trust fund. I think the appropriators, both Democrats and Republicans, understood that the legislation we passed last year was very important. It was very important in making sure people were not denied coverage because of preexisting conditions--many people. That is why my colleague from Massachusetts could read letters from organizations representing people who have struggled with cancer, senior citizen organizations, people struggling with mental illness, the disabilities community. People, I say to my colleagues, have to live with this fear. It is horrible. It is bad enough to be ill. It is another thing to have to worry that you are not going to be able to even get any coverage. We have passed legislation to say the insurance companies are not going to be able to discriminate against you, but we have not been able to implement it as fully as we want to. And on the mental health parity again, I would just say, this is from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. I heard my colleague from Oklahoma speak about it several times. He heard me speak about it several times. I am sure HCFA wishes they mentioned the Mental Health Parity Act. On the regulations, I wish they got them out earlier. I don't think they have enough people to get regulations out. They have a huge, mammoth mandate. But the fact of the matter is, one more time, colleagues, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners reports that 30 States have not yet enacted the mental health parity legislation. Minnesota, I am proud to say, is a State that has enacted this legislation. So ultimately this is about whether or not the U.S. Senate supports the appropriators. The appropriators came up with something that was balanced and reasonable. The appropriators understand, and I think what they have proposed represents this understanding, that we have a contract with people in the country. People believe they are going to have some protection. You know, it is hard going against these insurance companies. Can't we make sure there are a few more women and men--I don't just use the word ``bureaucrats'' with a sneer--who are out there to enforce this law? Can't we make sure there is protection for people? Can't we side with the citizens in this country? I know the insurance companies would love for HCFA not to be able to have the womanpower and manpower to enforce this legislation. But I think we should be on the side of the vast majority of people in this country and not on the side of large insurance companies. I think that is what this vote is about, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the Nickles amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, does the Senator understand that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners lists the following 30 States: Alabama, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as States that are not in compliance and have not yet enacted the Mental Health Parity law? Is the Senator aware of that from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to start out by reading from a letter to Senator Kennedy from Nancy-Ann Min DeParle: Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to request your assistance in securing funding for HCFA to implement the insurance reform provisions of HIPAA. The $6 million and 65 FTEs that we have requested for this purpose will allow us to implement the HIPAA provisions, as well as those enacted subsequently in the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act and the Mental Health Parity Act in those states that have not fully implemented HIPAA. We had this discussion yesterday. But as we approach a possible vote on this amendment, let me say one more time--and I have a letter here from Laurie Flynn, executive director, which Senator Kennedy offered during other parts of this debate. I want to focus on the mental health parity. Laurie Flynn, executive director, a very strong advocate for people struggling with mental illness, concludes her letter by saying: Consequently, on behalf of NAMI's 172,000 members nationwide, I am writing to express my strong appreciation of your leadership in advocating for adequate funding to support HCFA's enforcement responsibilities under HIPAA. Mr. President, there are still some 30 States, or thereabouts, that are not yet in compliance. Again, in the last Congress, we passed the Mental Health Parity Act. This was an enormous step forward. We said to a lot of women and men and to their families that we are going to rise above the stigma, we are going to make sure that there is coverage for you, at least when it comes to lifetime and annual caps; we are not going to have any discrimination, and we are going to treat your illness the way a physical illness is treated. We know that much of this is biochemical. We know that pharmacological treatment with family and community support can make all the difference in the world. Hopes were raised, expectations were built up. Now, what we are talking about is making sure--I say again to my colleague what I said yesterday--that this is enforced, that this is implemented. I am very worried that without this additional womanpower and manpower, we are not going to be able to actually enforce this law of the land; we are not going to be able to have this implemented around the country. My colleague from Oklahoma keeps talking about bureaucrats. I go back to what I said yesterday. We are always talking about bureaucrats. We can also be talking about men and women in public service who have a job to do. In this particular case, the job is to make sure that the law of the land is implemented. It is to make sure that there isn't discrimination against people struggling with mental illness, that there isn't discrimination against their families, and that we make sure that States or insurance companies or plans are in compliance. I think that is what this debate is all about. Now, Senator Kennedy has letters from all sorts of organizations, consumer groups, people struggling with disabilities, and on and on and on--I am sure he read from them--which are basically saying the same thing. One more time, I simply want to say that the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill really was important to millions of people around the country, to millions of families. People now had every reason to believe that because they had a bout with cancer or with diabetes or other kinds of illnesses, they weren't going to be denied coverage because of a ``preexisting condition''; they would be able to move from one company to another and not lose their plan. It was now the law of the land that insurance companies could not discriminate against them in that way. This additional request --yes, it is an emergency request because it is an emergency to these families--is to make sure that, in fact, people are able to have the assurance that they won't be able to be discriminated against and to make sure that families that are struggling with mental illness won't have to be faced with that discrimination. This is the right place to make sure that we put the funding into this. I say to colleagues, I think for all colleagues who supported this legislation, it would be a huge mistake and I think it is just wrong to turn around now and deny some of the necessary funding for the actual implementation of these laws. Either we are serious about ending this discrimination, either we are serious about making sure insurance companies can't deny people this coverage, or we are not. I think this vote on whether or not HCFA will have the resources, which means there will be women and men that will be able to enforce this around the country, is a vote on whether or not we are going to live up to the legislation that we passed. We can't give with one hand and take away with another. So I hope that my colleagues will vote against this Nickles amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are we on the Nickles amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Madam President, yesterday we did adopt an amendment I offered which I think will be helpful. It essentially says that the Secretary of the Treasury will set up an advisory committee with members from labor, the human rights community, the social justice community and the environmental community. I think eight members will meet with him--or her--twice a year in the future, twice a year, to monitor whether or not the IMF is living up to its own statutory mandates. Let me just simply say that Muchtar Pakpahan is a labor leader in Indonesia. He is imprisoned; he is in jail. He is in jail because he was organizing workers for a higher minimum wage. I went through all the statutes yesterday that apply to the IMF, that are a part of the law. There is supposed to be full respect for human rights; there is supposed to be respect for internationally recognized labor rights; there is supposed to be respect for basic environmental protection provisions, and the IMF is not in compliance. Over and over and over again, the IMF turns its gaze away from these conditions in these countries. Over and over and over again, apparently our country, this administration, turns its gaze away. I simply want to say one more time, to quote Joe Stiglitz, World Bank chief economist--I think he is right that this Washington consensus is profoundly mistaken. I think he is right when he says the IMF goes in the opposite direction of raising wage levels, focusing on education, focusing on making sure that citizens in these countries are able to benefit from the infusion of capital, that it ought not to be just about the investors and the bankers. It ought to be about improving the living standards of people in these countries. I think he is right to suggest that what is going to happen as a result of austerity measures imposed on these countries, as has been done in the past, there will be fewer people in these countries to consume our products. And these countries will be exporting cheaper and cheaper products into our country, again, hurting working families. We have missed a tremendous opportunity. The United States of America and the U.S. Senate, on this vote, which I think will be an overwhelming vote in favor of this, will have missed a tremendous opportunity to be on the side of internationally recognized labor standards, to be on the side of human rights, to be on the side of environmental protection, to be on the side of improving the living standards of people in these countries. We have missed this opportunity. And I believe that this infusion of capital into the IMF, if the IMF's flawed programs are imposed on these countries, will, in fact, end up not only hurting these countries, but also hurt severely the people in our own country as well. I think it is a tragic mistake on our part not to have used this moment, not to have used our leverage to change the flawed policies of the International Monetary Fund. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, yesterday I asked unanimous consent that I would have 10 minutes to speak before the final vote. I do not think it has anything to do with this other time. That, I think, is part of the Record. I had asked unanimous consent, and it was granted, that I would have 10 minutes to speak. I do not want to take time away from my other colleagues. That was the only reason I asked my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Then I wanted to use my full time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I say to colleagues, I rise to speak against this Washington consensus. This IMF provision may pass with an overwhelming vote, but I want to just be crystal clear. We are, I think most of us, internationalists. I believe that what happens in these countries, in Asia, Indonesia, Thailand and other countries, will dramatically affect our country. I have no disagreement with that. But the IMF over and over and over again has imposed austerity measures, has depressed the wages and living conditions of people in these countries, has been in violation of statutes that are supposed to govern the IMF in relation to human rights, labor, in relation to respect for indigenous peoples, in relation to environmental protection. What is going to happen is that these IMF measures are not going to help these countries or help our country. Countries following these IMF prescriptions are going to be forced either to import even less from our country because they do not have consumers because the people are poor--and the people become poor because of IMF austerity measures imposed on these countries. Or these countries--and this is another effect of IMF programs--are going to be forced into devaluing currencies and trying to buy their way out of trouble through cheap exports, which will again end up competing against, and hurting, working families in our country. I understand my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, is on the floor. I ask him, is he on the floor to speak against this amendment on IMF or on a different subject?

Mr. WELLSTONE. ``United Auto Workers International Executive Board Resolution on U.S. Contributions to the International Monetary Fund.'' I will quote one section: To achieve [an] increase in exports, the IMF insists on austerity measures that include slashing public spending, jacking up interest rates to exorbitant levels, deregulating markets, devaluing currencies, and reducing existing labor protections. The impact on workers and their families is devastating. Workers face massive layoffs and wage cuts, while the prices of basics such as food, housing, energy and transportation skyrocket. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record, as well as a ``Dear Colleague'' letter from Representative Kucinich.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I quote from Joseph Stiglitz, World Bank chief economist and senior vice president, in which he called for an end to ``misguided policies imposed from Washington.'' The World Bank senior vice president and chief economist is scathing in what he calls the ``Washington Consensus'' of U.S. economic officials, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. He talks about a Washington consensus that seeks to increase measured GDP, whereas we should seek increases of living standards, including improved health and education. We seek equitable development which ensures that all groups in society enjoy the fruits of development, not just the few at the top. And we seek democratic development. That is what he proposes as an alternative to the Washington consensus. I ask unanimous consent to have this piece, ``World Bank Chief Economist Stiglitz: IMF Policies Are Fundamentally Wrong,'' printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill, as well as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, for accepting my amendment. I offered it on behalf of myself and Senators Conrad, Dorgan and Daschle to address a shortfall in funding during the current fiscal year of USDA farm credit programs in our states and across the country as a result of disastrous weather and economic conditions. The amendment is simple. It adds $8.6 million in appropriation to this emergency supplemental spending bill for Farm Service Agency operating loans, both guaranteed and direct. The amendment adds $3.2 million in appropriation for direct farm operating loans, which allows lending authority of $52 million nationwide. This is in addition to the $3.1 million of appropriation and approximately $48 million in lending authority that already was in the bill, bringing the total amount of lending authority for FSA direct operating loans in the bill to approximately $100 million. The amendment also adds $5.4 million in appropriation for guaranteed subsidized interest loans, allowing lending authority of approximately $56 million for that existing FSA program. Previously there was no money in the bill for this type of credit. I will include in the Record a letter from my state's Farm Service Agency office, signed by the state director and FSA state committee members from Minnesota. The letter not only documents the dire need for additional funding in this bill for these two important programs, but explains what has become a farm crisis in parts of Minnesota. I don't use the word crisis lightly. It causes me some pain to observe that it is an accurate word. I attended a meeting in Crookston, Minnesota a number of weekends ago, called for the purpose of addressing the increasingly disturbing economic conditions, especially in the Northwestern part of the state, as well as in North Dakota. There was a sign on the building that announced, ``Farm crisis meeting.'' I attended far too many farm crisis meetings in Minnesota during the 1980s, and it was with some dismay that I read that sign as I entered the meeting in Crookston. But I must note that from what farmers and bankers in these communities are telling me, from what I saw and heard in Crookston, we have a grave situation. I will also include in the Record an article from the Star Tribune, Minnesota's largest-circulation newspaper, titled, ``Red River Valley farmers tell of sorrow that is fallout of 5 hard years.'' I am sure that colleagues will recall pictures and descriptions of hardship and travail in the Red River Valley following last year's calamitous floods. But I am hearing disturbing news that farmers elsewhere in the state also are struggling, in many cases due to low prices. Madam President, my Dakota colleagues and I do not imagine that the additional farm credit that we are including in this emergency bill will solve the very difficult economic problems in portions of our states' farm economy. It will, however, allow a number of farmers to stay in business this year, to keep operating and, hopefully, to get past immediate difficulty in a way that allows them to maintain an operation that is viable into the future. Each of us also supports legislative proposals aimed at improving federal farm policy. I believe current policy is on a wrong track, that the so-called Freedom to Farm legislation enacted in 1996 was a mistake, and that we should act to raise loan rates for a targeted amount of production on each farm. I also believe that the repayment period for marketing loans should be extended and that crop insurance should be repaired so that affordable coverage can do a better job of covering losses. Further, I intend to push very hard this year for an increase in research to find a means to eradicate a very damaging disease known as scab which is affecting wheat in our region. Still, without the additional loan money we are including, serious need for credit would go unmet in our states. In the letter I have included in the Record, Minnesota FSA officials note that the shortfall this year in funds for these two types of operating loans will be $24 million. The letter from the state FSA officials points out that some experts believe that as many as one in five farm families in Northwestern Minnesota may be on the brink of failure. It correctly observes that for much of Minnesota agriculture 1997 was a year ``wrought with disaster.'' I appreciate the help of my colleagues in including this urgently needed assistance. I am very pleased that if we can hold this amount in the bill's conference, we will be coming through for farm families in Minnesota and around the country. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter and article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am prepared to vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment says that the Treasury Secretary shall appoint an advisory committee, composed of eight members, at least two of whom are from organized labor, two from nongovernment environmental groups, and two from nongovernmental human rights or social justice organizations. This is an advisory group on IMF policy, which the Senator in the Chair right now has worked very hard on. I know that. This advisory group would meet at least twice a year to advise the Treasury Secretary on IMF's compliance with existing statutory requirements relating to IMF promotion in a variety of different areas: High levels of income and employment in other countries, fair labor practices, indigenous people's rights, reductions in military spending, respect for human rights, and sensitivity to the environmental impact of IMF policies. The advisory committee shall meet with the Treasury Secretary at least every 6 months to review and provide advice on IMF compliance with these mandates. There is no legislative mandate. All the Treasury Secretary has to do is meet twice per year with the committee to hear their views on IMF compliance with existing mandates. Let me explain to my colleagues why I bring this amendment to the floor. We spent, yesterday, altogether 30 minutes in debate on IMF. We are talking about, roughly speaking, $17 billion to go to IMF. We are talking about countries in Asia--I have heard my colleague from Alaska say this very forcefully--that are really right now in economic trouble. We are talking about a lot of economic pain. I agree--I am an internationalist--what happens in these countries will dramatically affect people in our country as well. There is no question about it. But I want to suggest to colleagues that the question is whether or not the IMF, as I look at the record of the IMF, has been helpful or not helpful in helping these economies and helping the people in these countries. What happens in some of the Asian countries will dramatically affect the lives of people in our country in a number of different ways. Either people in countries like Thailand or Indonesia will not be able to work at decent jobs, will make subminimum poverty wages--in which case, they will not be able to have the money to purchase goods--or, because of IMF policies, which has too often been the case, they will be forced to currency devaluation and they will try to work themselves out of trouble through cheap exports to our country. Either way, working families in Nebraska and Minnesota and Alaska and around our country are hurt if we do not put some focus in the IMF. I am about to go through existing laws and statutes that the IMF is supposed to live up to, and I am just going to talk about a whole history of noncompliance. We have not had this discussion on the floor of the Senate. We should. I mean, if in fact what happens in these Asian countries is that we have the IMF pouring fuel on the fire, if you have an International Monetary Fund that imposes austerity measures on these countries, depresses wage levels, has no respect for international labor standards, shows no respect for human rights-- people cannot even organize to make a decent living, people cannot even organize in these countries like Indonesia in order to make sure that they are paid decent wages--then what is going to happen is, you have countries with a populous where the vast majority of the people cannot buy what we produce in our country. This is like economics lesson No. 1. Or--and this has happened all too often because of IMF prescriptions--what happens is, these countries try to export themselves out of trouble: Currency devaluation, cheap exports to our country, and our workers and our families cannot compete. Let me just go through some existing laws right now that are supposed to govern the International Monetary Fund. By the way, they are in noncompliance. The problem is, the administration has not spent much time really insisting on accountability. The problem is, we have turned our gaze away from this. I wish our country would be stronger in supporting international labor standards, stronger in supporting environmental standards, stronger in supporting basic human rights for people. But we have not done that. The Secretary of Treasury shall direct the United States executive directors of the international financial institutions to use the voice and vote of the United States to urge the respective institution [this covers the IMF] to adopt policies to encourage borrowing countries to guarantee internationally recognized worker rights and to include the status of such rights as an integral part of the institution's policy dialog with each borrowing country. I suggest to colleagues, even though we have not discussed this on the floor of the Senate, that the IMF has ignored this law and that the International Monetary Fund pays precious little attention to whether or not these countries that we bail out live up to internationally recognized labor rights. Mr. President, to go on: Beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director of each multinational development bank not to vote in favor of any action proposed to be taken by the respective bank which would have a significant effect on the human or environmental assessment for at least 120 days before the date of the vote until an assessment analyzing the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action has been completed by the borrowing country or institution. Again, another law that the IMF is supposed to live up to, another relevant statute that there ought to be an environmental impact statement. We ought to look at what these countries are doing; we ought to look at where the money is going. These countries--or many of these countries--are in noncompliance, and the IMF just turns its gaze away from this, as does the United States, our Government. This is not in the name of our people, because I think people in our country support human rights, support respect for the environment. Human rights title: The U.S. Government in connection with its voice and vote in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the InterAmerican Development Bank, the African Development Bank [so on and so forth] the International Monetary Fund, shall advance the cause of human rights including by seeking to channel assistance toward countries other than those whose governments engage in a pattern [and I am quoting] of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights such as torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, or other flagrant denial to life, liberty and the security of person. Mr. President, in this connection, let me point out that a labor leader in Indonesia, Mochtar Pakpahan--we are about to provide the IMF, and the IMF is about to provide, based upon, in part, the U.S. contribution, Indonesia with bailout money--and this man, this labor leader, I say to my colleagues, is in prison. Why is he in prison? He is in prison for organizing workers in support of a higher minimum wage, people who work for wages that don't enable them or their families even to be able to have enough food to eat. And this man's crime, this labor leader's crime in Indonesia is that he has organized workers to get better wages. I just read the statute that applies to IMF policy. The way I read this--maybe I will read it again--is that the ``International Monetary Fund shall advance the cause of human rights, including by seeking to channel assistance toward countries other than those whose governments engage in gross violations of humans rights of citizens.'' What do we think is happening in Indonesia? Does any Senator on the floor of the Senate want to defend the Government of Indonesia for imprisoning a labor leader? Mr. President, I will suggest--and I will go on and read other laws that apply to the IMF--that what is wrong with this IMF provision, the amendment that we are going to vote on eventually, is that nowhere in here do we have any conditions dealing with labor, human rights standards, nowhere in here do we have any conditions dealing with environmental standards, nowhere in here do we have any discussion about the importance of promoting employment and higher wage levels for the citizens of these countries. So, it is a flawed institution. I am all for making sure these countries do better, but I don't think the IMF is going to help these countries do better. In fact, I think what the IMF does over and over again is make matters worse. I look at the record in some of these countries, and I see no evidence whatsoever that IMF policies have led to an improvement in the living standards of people in these countries. For the bankers, yes; for the investors, yes; and for some of these governments which are all too often corrupt, yes, but not for the people. We have an IMF agreement. I know that the Chair has worked hard on this. I know that the Senator from Alaska has been involved in this. And that is why I come out with an amendment that is very reasonable, because all this amendment says is, look, we have these existing statutes, it is already law, this is what the IMF is supposed to live up to, but we have a clear record of flagrant noncompliance. At the very minimum, let's make sure the Secretary of the Treasury meets with an advisory committee made up of some non-Government people dealing with human rights, dealing with labor, dealing with the environment at least twice a year so that we can put this on the radar screen. I know colleagues feel strongly that we must do something. I hope it works out. But I have to say that on the basis of the record of the IMF, I see no evidence whatsoever that the IMF's economic policies are going to help the Asian countries or help the people in the Asian countries. Instead, what I think is going to happen, since we have not had any clear provisions with real teeth in this legislation--and the best I can do today is to get a strong vote on this advisory committee, and I am intending to send a message to the administration. Secretary of the Treasury Rubin is a fine Secretary. He is skillful, he has been gracious, and I think he is committed to doing better. It isn't even personal, because I think he believes that we have to do better. But in all due respect, we at the very minimum ought to begin to put these questions on the table. We ought to put these issues on the table. In all due respect, I say to my colleagues, I am just telling you this is a flawed institution. We are about to invest a lot of money in the International Monetary Fund, which has a record of imposing economic policies on countries which depress the living standards of most of the people in those countries. That is the record. As a result, those people don't have the economic power, the dollars to consume products that we make in our country; as a result, quite often these countries barrel down the path of exporting cheap products to our country, and, again, working families in the United States of America pay the price. It is a lose-lose situation. The people in Indonesia are not going to win, the people in Thailand are not going to win, and the people in the United States are not going to win. Let me go on and read a few other provisions. Talking about the International Monetary Fund, one of the goals must be to ``facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high-level employment and real income and to the development of productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy.'' I have to say to colleagues, I cannot believe that this is a statute that applies to the IMF, because that is not what the International Monetary Fund has been about. I do not know how anybody here can make the case that the IMF's economic prescriptions for these countries have been about promoting ``high levels of employment and real income and the development of productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy.'' That is almost laughable. That is not what the IMF has done. I think what we have done is we have forfeited a historic opportunity to strengthen the position of working people in these other countries, to support the human rights of citizens in these other countries, to take a look at Thailand and Indonesia, who are among the worst offenders in Asia denying worker rights, among the worst offenders in Asia in violating the human rights of their citizens, and, basically, what we have on the Senate floor is silence on these questions. Why don't we have any connection to what are, I think, the most important factors in determining whether or not the people in these countries are going to do well and the majority of the people in our own country are going to do well? As I look at these provisions--and I will go back and I will summarize this amendment--this amendment essentially instructs the Treasury Secretary to appoint an advisory committee composed of eight members, at least two of which will be from organized labor, two from nongovernmental environmental groups and two from nongovernmental human rights or social justice organizations. This advisory committee will meet with the Secretary of the Treasury twice a year, and they will talk about IMF policy, whether or not the IMF is in compliance or not with existing statutory requirements relating to IMF promotion of high levels of income, employment, fair labor practices, indigenous people's rights, reductions in military spending, respect for human rights and sensitivity to the environmental impact of IMF policies. The advisory committee shall meet with the Treasury Secretary at least every 6 months to review and to provide advice on IMF compliance with these mandates. I will say one more time, by way of conclusion, the IMF is not in compliance with these mandates, not in compliance with the existing laws that apply to IMF, not in compliance on internationally recognized labor rights, not in compliance of respect for indigenous people, not in compliance in human rights, not in compliance with sensitivity to environmental concerns. We have a golden opportunity, and we are missing it. That is why I am not going to vote for this amendment that deals with International Monetary Fund assistance to these countries to make things much better. I believe that what we are about to do, the amendment we are going to adopt on the International Monetary Fund, will, in fact, not help those countries in Asia, not help the peoples of those countries that are struggling, and will end up hurting not only people in countries like Indonesia, but also will hurt families in our country as well. Why in the world don't we have more to say about a brutal dictatorship in Indonesia? Why don't we have more to say about the ways in which this dictator crushes people in his own country? Why don't we have more to say about the depressing of living standards of people in Indonesia? Why don't we have more to say about all the ways in which those people, not having decent jobs and decent wages, cannot buy what our working people produce? Why don't we have more to say about the way in which the IMF comes in, bails out the bankers, bails out the investors, insists on currency devaluation, insists on austerity and, therefore, forces those countries into currency devaluation and to exporting cheap products into our country, thereby hurting, again, working families in the United States of America? Not a word about that. I think the Senate is in serious error for not focusing like a laser beam on these concerns. But I will thank my colleagues for at least supporting this amendment, which I will fight very hard to keep in conference committee, because I really do believe that if we can have this advisory committee which will meet with the Secretary of the Treasury twice a year and which will raise these issues twice a year and which will discuss with the Secretary and analyze with the Secretary whether or not the IMF is in compliance with all of the statutory requirements relating to environmental protection, relating to human rights, relating to international labor standards, I think this will at least be a step forward. I am, on the one hand, just saying to colleagues that I think the provisions we have out here in relation to the IMF, the investment we make in the International Monetary Fund is mistaken. I think we miss a tremendous opportunity to exert leadership, the United States of America exerting leadership in behalf of working people in other countries, in behalf of human rights, in behalf of the environment. We are not doing that. But at the very least, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I said to my colleague from Alaska that if the Senate is, in its wisdom, going to support this amendment, then I am pleased to have a vote right now. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try not to take 30 minutes. Since the manager of the bill supports this amendment, if we want to do it on voice vote, if that will be better for colleagues, I will be pleased to do it that way as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. With no second degree.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to do that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I can't agree to a time limit if I can't get agreement on a second-degree amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to move to this amendment and that there be no second-degree amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Alaska, I will withdraw the other three amendments. And then I would like to have an agreement that I would have 30 minutes with no second degree on this amendment, which I think will generate widespread support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I may be able to do it in less time, but I have been wanting to speak about the IMF amendment. I will try to do it in less. But I would like now to reserve 30 minutes. At one point in time, as my good friend from Alaska knows, I had four amendments.