Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to speak briefly about this amendment. I will vote for this amendment because I believe Israel has a right to address the concerns of its citizens. As Camus once said: Murder is never legitimate. When men and women are murdered at a seder meal, or there is the deliberate targeting of teenagers at pizza parlors, it is not at all surprising that Israel, the Government of Israel, wants to protect its own citizens and will respond. I support this amendment because I believe it is about Israel's need and right to protect its citizens against terrorism. The amendment also states that many of the Arab States have been silent in the face of this unacceptable violence. I believe they must unequivocally declare their opposition to all forms of terrorism, particularly the suicide bombing, and work with the Palestinians, in concert with the United States, to stop this violence. I wish also to say something more personal to my colleague from Connecticut. I am, if you will, a son of Israel. I am a first- generation American. My father, a Jewish immigrant, fled persecution. He was born in Odessa, and his family moved to Russia to stay ahead of the pogroms. I remember, as a little boy, watching my parents watch TV, and they would weep when Israel was at war. I never really understood the strong feeling that they had for Israel. I do now. While the amendment before us affirms Israel's right and freedom to protect its people against terror, I do not read this amendment as an explicit or implicit endorsement of every action that the Government of Israel and its forces have taken in the occupied territory over the last several weeks. There is a distinction in my mind between affirming my solidarity with Israel and not equating that with support of every policy of the Sharon administration. I also want to talk briefly about the role of our government. I believe the real test ahead will be whether or not the Bush administration stays engaged in the Middle East. Over and over again, I have pointed out that I believe Secretary Powell's efforts have been extremely important--that the administration has finally left the sidelines and is on the playing field of Middle East diplomacy. It must stay in the game. Israeli officials say the conditions could worsen in the days to come. We may see more suicide bombings. But if the Bush administration, facing such an escalation of violence in the region, withdraws, as it has before, history will judge it harshly. We have to stay engaged. I believe we must pursue a courageous approach which seeks to meet both the critical needs of the Israeli people to be free from terrorism and violence, and acknowledges the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state, a state which is economically and politically viable. Even in this horrific time, we should not lose sight of what should be our ultimate goal--Israel and a new Palestinian State living side by side with peace and with secure borders. There is no question in my mind--and I could go on for hours about this--about the need to end the culture of violence and the culture of incitement in Palestinian and Arab media, in the schools, and elsewhere. It has gone on for too long. But I also think it is terribly important that Israel shows respect for and concern about the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian people who are now and will continue to be their neighbors. It is critically important--I believe this amendment embraces this, and maybe my colleague from Connecticut would like to respond--to distinguish between the terrorists, who must be confronted, and ordinary, innocent Palestinians who are trying to provide for their families and live an otherwise normal existence. This is a critical distinction. We don't want to see Palestinians subjected to daily and humiliating reminders that they lack basic freedoms and control over their lives. I have had certain discussions with people, which have been quite painful. I have had people come into my office who have been very critical of what Israel is doing. I listen to them. They make the distinction between defending against terrorists, and harming innocent civilians--a distinction I agree with--and say repeatedly, what about the innocent Palestinians? I say it is a Jewish thing for me to be concerned about the loss of all innocent lives. But then I say to them, I want you to also talk to me about the loss of innocent Israeli life. I want you to talk to me about the Jews that were murdered at their seder meal. These are people who feel strongly, and who condemn Israel's actions. When I meet with them, they don't say anything about the murder of Israelis. My God. I wonder why. I have also met with other people who never utter a word about the loss of innocent Palestinians. This is not an argument about moral equivalency--I know the difference between innocent civilians who are deliberately targeted and murdered, as is the case with suicide bombings, and when they are not deliberately targeted or not deliberately harmed. But if my mother and father were alive, they would be weeping for the loss of innocent Israelis, and they would also be weeping for the loss of innocent life everywhere. They would say: Paul, we want you as our son to express your solidarity for Israel. We love Israel. You are a son of Israel. But we also, Paul, want you to be clear on the floor of the Senate that supporting this amendment--which I do--does not mean it should be viewed as an endorsement of every single, specific policy or action by the Sharon administration. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement. I think it is a supremely important statement. As an example of my definition of hope--I had a chance to talk about this at Temple Israel in Minneapolis--is the story of the Israeli man who was one of the Israelis murdered at the bombing of the seder. His organs were donated to save the life of a Palestinian woman. His children said: Our father would be very proud. I believe this is hope. I say to my colleague from Connecticut and South Carolina, that is the hope. I do not believe I am being naive when I say there are a lot of people--a majority of the people--who understand that we have to get from where we are now to where we all know we need to be. The terrorists will not get us there.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to follow Senator McCain in the order, speaking later, for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, does the Senator from New Jersey want to speak as well on this subject?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two editorials--one from the New York Times, and one from the Minneapolis Star Tribune--about the importance of ending discrimination in mental health coverage and calling for full mental health parity.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Both editorials are strong. They thank the President and my partner in this effort, Senator Domenici, for their fine work. Both point out that we need to make sure we have full mental health parity. We need to end the discrimination and make sure our loved ones and other families are provided with the treatment they need. That is not happening today. This would be a huge civil rights bill that would end discrimination and get much more coverage to people. I recommend to every colleague the three-part series in the New York Times, front page. I cannot even read it, it is so powerful and so painful with regard to what is happening to those put in homes for mental health coverage. Because of the coverage they are getting, there will be a criminal investigation. People have taken their lives by jumping out of windows because of no supervision. The staff is underpaid and poorly trained and does not know how to provide the pharmacological coverage. People live in the homes which are supposed to be community-based care, and there is absolutely no treatment, no help. These are people who do not have money. They are not capable of being a political force. My God, they live under the most wretched conditions. This should not happen in the United States of America. It is a powerful series. I have never seen a greater contribution than what the New York Times has done on the front-page series.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have a couple of matters to cover. I caught the end of Senator McCain's statement. I point out to colleagues the link between the telecommunications bill that passed in 1996 and reform. I remember the anteroom was packed with all kinds of interests representing billions of dollars. I was trying to figure out where truth, liberty, and justice was in the anteroom. I think the consumers were left out. We have not seen cable rates go down, but we have seen consolidation. For those who worry about competition, I argue when we look today at telecommunications and the mass media, we see a few conglomerates controlling the flow of information in the democracy. That is frightening. If there was a sector of the economy that is ripe for antitrust action, this is one--along with the food industry.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. My third topic is education. I spoke yesterday almost with a twinkle in my eye when I heard what this administration is proposing to do. In Minnesota, in 1999, students took out $483 million in loans; $406 million in Federal loans. In 1987, it was $188 million, $483 million versus $188 million. Saying the students cannot consolidate loans and keep them at 4 percent and not worry about interest rates going up, average students-- if this administration has its way--are going to be charged an additional $3,000 more. It is unconscionable. All Senators need to understand many of our students are not 19 or 20, living in a dorm. Even if they are, a significant number of them are working 30 hours a week. These are not people for whom the cost of higher education for their families is easy. A lot of them are students not living in the dorm--40, 45, and 50 years of age--going back to school. Some of our taconite workers are going back to school to try to find employment and support their families. These are hard-pressed people. Now, this administration doesn't want to give them a break on interest rates on their loans? It is the most distorted of priorities. Give it all away in tax cuts. A vast majority of these tax cuts go to huge multinational corporations, wealthy citizens, the top 1 percent of the population. And to give them credit, many of them say: We do not need it. Instead, we are told we don't have enough money to fund the Pell grant, so the way we will do it is to charge higher interest rates for students, many of whom are hard pressed. It is unconscionable, unacceptable. I announce on the floor of the Senate, along with other Senators, including the Senator from Minnesota, the Presiding Chair, who cannot speak but I can speak for him, we are not going to let it happen. It is not going to happen. I say to the White House: It is not going to happen. Tomorrow we will talk with teachers, including teachers from Minnesota. I will talk about the education budget. We had all of the symbolic politics ``leave no child behind,'' with all the travel around the country, including in Minnesota and coming to the high school, Eden Prairie High School, all for education, all for the children--accept for when it comes to digging in the pocket and providing resources. The State of Minnesota anxiously awaits the administration living up to the commitment to provide the full funding for special education. We had it done in the Senate. It was on a glidepath. The Presiding Chair and I would have liked to have seen it happen quicker. Over 5 years, it would be full funding, and over the next 5 years and the rest of the decade it would be mandatory, automatic full funding, $2 billion more in resources for education for the State of Minnesota, half of which would be used for special education, and half to be used to cover other costs which we incur because we do not get the funding from the Federal Government. The House Republican leadership and the White House blocked it. We are going to have a debate on this issue. There are a lot of different formulations. I say forego the tax cuts for the top 1 percent; forego giving multinational corporations breaks so they don't pay taxes. Then we will have $130 billion, and over the next 10 years that is exactly what we need to provide full funding for special education. I stake my political reputation on that tradeoff. I come from a State where we cut teachers, prekindergarten for children, and early childhood education programs. It breaks my heart to see that happen, where class sizes are going up. My daughter, Marsha, says her advanced Spanish class has 50 students. Colleagues, education is a compelling issue in people's lives. If you want to talk about what is good for the country, good for the economy, and good for democracy, you are going to want to support education. We ought to be doing this. There will be a debate and every Senator will be held accountable. We need the full funding. That will be a fight. I know the Democrats will fight for it, and I hope many Republicans do as well. Finally, ``leave no child behind,'' is the mission statement of the Children's Defense Fund. It is probably too much for them to take because all we have is a tin cup budget from this administration. To me, education is pre-K through 65; it is not K through 12. Talking about higher education, older students, talking about students going back to school, and then there is the prekindergarten, which for some reason always is put in parenthesis, that is probably the most important education of all. I don't want to celebrate the administration's budget. I am in profound disagreement with the priorities of this administration on children and education. I celebrate the work of these childcare teachers, many of whom make $7 an hour, with no health care benefits. It is preposterous. We say we love children, believe in children, but we devalue the work of the adults who help those children. We are going to be meeting with Commissioner O'Keefe, probably with the Presiding Chair, as well, who has come from Minnesota. We are talking about TANF and welfare reform, and the administration has a new formula that 70 percent of the single parents, mainly women, will be working out of the home 40 hours a week, but they don't have additional money for childcare. There are a lot of other things that are wrong with this reform as well. My point is, whether it be welfare mothers, whether it be families with parents, whether it be single parents working, whether it be both parents working, whether it be low-income, moderate-income, or middle- income, this is a huge issue. I ask unanimous consent that I have 3 more minutes to finish.

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a huge issue for working families. Many of these families pay more for childcare than they do for higher education. In Minnesota, 30 percent of adult workers make under $10 an hour. Let's talk about another issue, affordable housing. To pay for the rent of a two-bedroom apartment, not amounting to that much, they will be lucky if they pay less than $900 in Metropolitan Minnesota and it is pretty expensive in Greater Minnesota. If they have a 2- or 3-year-old, they will be very lucky if it is less than $1,000 for childcare. If you have a single parent, that is two-thirds of their income gone. I have not even included health care or transportation or food. I have not even included, maybe once in a blue Moon, being able to take in a movie or maybe taking your children out to eat. This administration talks about ``leave no child behind.'' Now they want to expand the absolute requirement that these mothers are all going to work. They do not provide the money for childcare. Right now we have about 10 percent of low-income families who can take advantage of childcare and get any help because we do not have the funding. In Early Head Start, it is about 3 percent of these children who can take advantage of Early Head Start because we don't have the funding. Then there are the middle-income people who look for some assistance, and this administration gives us nothing. And they want to talk about ``leave no child behind.'' In all due respect, they want to talk about the importance of reading, all of which is fine, but where is the investment? Where is the investment in these children? I finish in these words. I borrow in part from Jonathan Kozol but in part myself. This is my favorite way of putting it. You help these children when they are little, not because when you help them when they are little they are more likely to graduate from high school--true; not because when you help them when they are little they are more likely to go to college--true; not because when you help them when they are little they are more likely to graduate and contribute to our economy and be good citizens--true. You help them when they are little because they are all under 4 feet tall and they are beautiful and we should be nice to them. That is why we should help children when they are little. That is a spiritual argument. I don't see that in the budget from this administration. I intend, as a Senator, working with Democrats and as many Republicans as possible, to have amendments out here calling for a dramatic increase in investment in early childhood education, in K-12, in higher education. To me it starts with education. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the Senator from South Carolina is going to speak for 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have not had a chance to review the specifics of the President's proposal. Jill Morningstar works for me on education. She gave me a briefing last night, which I haven't had a chance to read. As I understand it, the administration is now basically proposing that students will not be able to consolidate some of their students loans in order to lower the interest rates and give them a break on interest rates. I want to say to the White House that this is a true no-brainer; that is to say, it is a nonstarter. I think the more the administration hears from higher education students in the State of Minnesota and around the country, the more they are going to realize that it is not true that these students when not in school are traveling around the swank ski resorts or playing on all the swank golf courses because they have a ton of money. It is not true. If they are 18, 19, and 20, many of them are working several jobs 30 hours a week. Many of these students in my State--I bet in Delaware, too--are in their forties and fifties and are going back to school. I am the beneficiary of the National Defense Education Act, which was a low-interest rate loan, and I only had to pay half of it back because I went into teaching. We should be going in the direction of more affordable higher education--not less affordable. I think the bind this administration is in with their proposal is they are trying to figure out ways of supporting the Pell Grant Program because so far in their budget they don't have the support for it and the ability to find other pots of money. This is sort of an unconscionable tradeoff. This is not the way we get more funding for Pell grants or other worthy programs--basically by severely undercutting students' abilities to be able to combine their loans and pay a lower rate of interest. This is really anti-education. Frankly, it is anti-student. I want the higher education community in Minnesota to know that is why I came to the floor. I am adamantly opposed to this policy. I join the ranks of other Senators--Democrats and Republicans alike--in opposition. I think for many middle-income families higher education ranks right up there as one of the huge issues. It is very important. I imagine that back in my State--and other Senators and Representatives will be doing the same thing--I will be having some meetings with students. Unless I am wrong, I think we will see a tremendous reaction, a lot of organizing, and a lot of insistence that the administration change this policy. I am on the floor of the Senate today to call upon the White House to basically back away. They are going in the wrong direction. They are going to really feel the political heat. You should really feel the political heat. This is the bind we are in. All of these worthy programs are on a collision course with the tax cut. Let us have tax cuts. Let us do some of it, but there has to be balance. We have done so much by way of tax cuts. Now they want to make these tax cuts permanent. We no longer have revenue when it comes to affordable higher education, prekindergarten, welfare reform, money for childcare, money for TANF, affordable housing, special education, title I, support for COPS, support for firefighters assistance grants, and more research for all kinds of disabling diseases and illnesses. So many people in the last couple of days have come from our State asking about money for Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, mental health, and on and on. The money isn't there. This is one little example. I come to the floor of the Senate to make clear my opposition to the direction the administration is going. I call on students to organize for higher education to make sure their voices are heard. I think the administration needs to hear from you because they are about to make it harder for you to afford your education. That is a distorted priority. We ought not be making it harder for men and women--whatever their age--who want to pursue higher education. It makes no sense whatsoever. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before speaking on the fast track bill, I be allowed to speak on the Middle East, and I will take about 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. For colleagues who are watching, because I know there are a lot of people who want to speak, I probably will not take a full hour on my statement on fast track. I will try to proceed expeditiously, but first of all I do want to speak on the Middle East because I do not think we can ignore what is happening in the world. It has such a critical and crucial impact on our lives and our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. search for middle east peace Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I had enormous hopes for a permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians before the collapse of the Oslo-Camp David peace process two years ago. Yet recently, as we all know, the situation in the Middle East has deteriorated dramatically, and what we have witnessed there is heart-breaking. As I speak today, Palestinian gunmen remain holed up in the Church of Nativity, Israeli tanks are present in the West Bank, and Israeli and Palestinian civilians, seized by anxiety, fear stepping into the street in order to go about their daily lives. Across the region and in this country too, people are grieving for innocent Israelis and Palestinians who have lost their lives. While there are new reports of clashes in Hebron, there is some positive news this morning. The month-long standoff at the Ramallah compound may be ending as U.S. and British security experts are expected to arrive today in the region to implement a U.S.-brokered plan. There are also signs of progress in Bethlehem, where there are news reports that many civilians not wanted by Israel will leave the church today. Even in this time of terrible violence, however, we cannot lose hope, for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians everywhere who yearn for peace--and especially for their children, and the generations to follow. For them, we must continue to seek a pathway to peace. To that end, Secretary Powell's mission to the region earlier this month was an important step. While a cease-fire was not achieved, the situation is less dangerous now than it might have been, without active U.S. engagement and Powell's vigorous diplomatic efforts. Events were spinning out of control earlier, especially on the border of Lebanon. But, the tense border situation seems to have cooled a bit, even if momentarily, due at least in part to Secretary Powell's work with the Syrians. The real test, however, is whether the administration will stay engaged. It has finally left the side-lines and is onto the playing field of Middle East diplomacy, and it must stay in the game. Israeli officials say that conditions might worsen in the days to come, that Israel may witness a rash of suicide bombings as it pulls its forces back. If the administration, facing such an escalation of violence in the region, withdraws, as it has before, history will judge us harshly. If it continues to devote its time, energy and prestige to achieving the goals Mr. Bush laid out earlier this month, then the violence might be contained, and we may see progress. Engagement remains the only intelligent option for our country now. We must pursue a courageous approach which seeks both to meet the critical need of the Israeli people to be free from terrorism and violence, and acknowledges the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state, a state which is economically and politically viable. Even in this horrific time, we must not lose sight of what should be our ultimate goal: Israel and a new Palestinian state living side-by-side, in peace, with secure borders. For many, the last two years have shattered confidence in any peace process. It has raised questions in some people's minds about whether Palestinians and Israelis can ever really live and work together, supporting each other's aspirations for peace, prosperity and security. We must do our best to work with the parties to restore calm, to end the bloodshed, and to get back to a political process that might address the underlying causes of this conflict. I believe many of the elements of the path back to peace are known: First, Palestinian leaders need to renew their severely damaged credibility as legitimate diplomatic partners by condemning terrorism and doing all in their power to combat it. Chairman Arafat has not consistently rejected or confronted terrorists; indeed if the evidence gather by the IDF is to be believed, he may have actually supported them. He cannot play both sides any longer, but must work to end terror and the sickening wave of suicide bombings Israel has suffered. There must also be an end to the culture of violence and the culture of incitement in Arab media, in schools and elsewhere, which Arab and Palestinian leadership have allowed to go unchecked too long. Throughout the region, anti-Israel incitement is widespread and insidious: government-controlled press, television programs and school textbooks regularly demonize Israelis with vile language and images. Arab states must help put an end to this, as it badly damages all the parties and powerfully undermines the cause of the Palestinian people and their national aspirations. President Bush and the international community have called on Israel to end its incursion into the West Bank, and Israel has begun a withdrawal, however partial and tentative. As President Bush stated, when Israel moves back, responsible Palestinian leaders and Israel's Arab neighbors must step forward, and demonstrate that they are working to establish peace: ``the choice and the burden will be theirs.'' To that end, the Palestinian leadership must commit to resuming security cooperation with Israel, and the United States and the international community must assist the Palestinians in reconstituting an effective security mechanism so they can do so. Second, Israel must show a respect for and concern about the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian people who are now and will continue to be their neighbors. It is critically important to distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary, innocent Palestinians who are trying to provide for their families and live an otherwise normal existence. Palestinians must no longer be subjected to the daily, often humiliating reminders that they lack basic freedom and control over their lives. Third, the United States and the international community must begin immediately the urgent task of rebuilding so that ordinary Palestinians can resume a normal existence. The Palestinian economy has been battered and the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority badly damaged. Last week, the World Bank identified a $2 billion need, estimating that the direct physical destruction of the public infrastructure alone is $300 million, and that at least 75 percent of the Palestinian workforce is now idle. At the same time, Israel is facing major economic challenges, with a serious recession and currency dropping to a new low recently. The international community and Israel's Arab neighbors must contribute to serious rehabilitation and economic development efforts. Consistent with the UN Security Council resolutions, the United Nations fact-finding team must be allowed to visit the territories to examine what actually happened in the Jenin Refugee Camp. As Secretary Powell has declared, this is in the best interests of all concerned, especially in the best interests of the Israelis, to end speculation and have a full, accurate, public accounting of what actually occurred there. As soon as details on the composition of the team is resolved and the scope of its mission agreed upon, it must be allowed access to conduct its work. Fourth, I believe there is no military solution to this conflict. The only path to a just and durable resolution is through negotiation. And there will be no lasting peace or regional stability without a strong and secure Israel, which is why the United States must maintain its commitment to preserving Israel's strength, and providing Israel substantial assistance. I believe the United State must now push forward with specific and concrete ideas for rebuilding the shattered trust between the parties, bringing an end to the violence, and offering a new path back to the road of peace. The points of departure for such a plan are already in place--the UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and the earlier settlement negotiations conducted at Taba, Egypt in January 2001. The recent Arab League support of the Saudi proposal for normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations is key. It acknowledges Israel's right to exist, and raises hope of a constructive Arab involvement in the search for peace. The United States should also consider supporting, with the consent of both parties, some kind of international observer force to enhance security for both sides. NATO might choose to take part in any such deployment, given Europe's continuing interest in containing the Middle East crisis. This could be followed, again with the agreement of all parties, with an international peace keeping force, if such a force could be helpful. We cannot afford to dither. The administration should move decisively to convene a broad international conference loosely based on the Madrid conference of 1991, at which the exchange of land for peace became the basis for negotiation. The goals of the conference should be spelled out clearly: putting the breaks on the violence and speeding negotiations for a two-state solution. Both sides will need to make painful choices if there is to be a just and stable peace. There must be a recognition of the tragic Palestinian refugee experience, and also an understanding that not all Palestinians refugees will be able to return to Israel. Many observers believe that the parties will eventually need to agree on a formula which would allow some refugees to return to Israel, and then provide for resettlement, and financial compensation for the remainder. And consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied territories will have to be addressed and, as many observers have noted, some settlements may need to be dismantled. All of this should be negotiated by the parties themselves. Despite the rage and raw feelings in the region now, most Israelis and most Palestinians crave a peaceful resolution to this conflict. This hunger for peace, and a sustained and vigorous engagement by the United States, are our best hope for achieving it. Andean Trade Mr. President, I debate this motion to proceed to fast track, the fast-track trade mechanism now known as the trade promotion authority. I oppose it on a lot of grounds. First, I oppose the bill because of a principled opposition to the fast-track mechanism. I am not sure that for me this principle would in all cases be absolute and decisive, but I do lean against any fast- track mechanism for fundamental reasons. Second, I oppose the bill based on my judgement in advance of the unlikelihood of seeing negotiated trade agreements that I will be able to support on behalf of the people of Minnesota and of the nation. I base that judgement on the negative consequences of past trade agreements, the track-record of this administration so far, and on the text of the Trade Promotion Authority Act, which I believe is fundamentally flawed in its approach. Finally, I oppose moving to the fast-track bill because I believe it is irresponsible to discuss it before first addressing the urgent needs of workers in this nation. Let me begin with my first reason for opposing the fast-track bill. I am inclined to oppose fast-track on general principles of democracy and representative accountability alone. Fast track procedures shorten necessary congressional debate and eliminate the option of amendments by elected and accountable representatives of the public. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it is not the President but Congress that shall ``regulate commerce with foreign nations'' and I am not willing to shirk my responsibility to make fair trade policy by giving the President authority to determine trade policies without meaningful checks from Congress. It is worth observing at the outset that when we say we are considering trade agreements under fast track procedures, the measures we are talking about generally entail the substantial changing of domestic laws. We are talking about packages of legislative changes that are the implementing bills for what the President and his representatives have negotiated with trading partners. We are not only discussing tariff schedules, important as those can be. We are talking about the alteration of domestic law. It is difficult to imagine good enough reasons to surrender our rights as Senators to unlimited debate on amendment of those measures before we have even seen them. This bill, HR 3005, which the motion to proceed could bring before us by the end of the week if it is successful, would lock in fast-track rules now for debates and votes we will have later. By later, I mean at whatever point we consider implementing legislation for several of the trade agreements which the Administration is now negotiating such as an agreement entered into under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, agreements with Chile and Singapore, and an agreement establishing a Free Trade of the Americas or which it might negotiate under this authority between now and 2005. That is the duration of the bill's provisions if it is enacted. In other words, we are deciding now whether to establish special and highly restrictive rules which will govern our debate and votes later on implementing bills for agreements whose contents we will not know until that time. That is the meaning of fast-track legislation. I wonder how many Americans are aware that the Senate might be willing to give away that much authority in the making of trade policy. If we pass this fast- track legislation, whatever agreement is negotiated and the changes in U.S. law that would be required in order for the United States to comply with it, will be considered automatically here in the Senate once that agreement is reached. This will take place on an expedited schedule, with no amendments, and with a limited number of hours of debate. Just one up-or-down vote on a giant bill changing numerous U.S. laws, with no amendments and limited debate. I am sorry to say that based on my experience, many of us in this body will probably be only partially aware of what is actually contained in such implementing bills. But in any case, even if we know every provision, we will not have the opportunity to change a single one. During my time here in the U.S. Senate, I have consistently opposed the granting of fast-track authority for trade agreements. I opposed it for NAFTA. I opposed it for creation of the WTO. I have yet to be convinced of the need for any fast-track authority to achieve beneficial trade agreements. The record of the previous Administration appears to reinforce this conviction. During the 1990s we entered into nearly 200 international commercial agreements without fast-track, including the Caribbean Basin Initiative and agreements with sub- Saharan Africa, Jordan and Vietnam. I should repeat that nearly 200 trade agreements, and only two of those utilized fast track procedures. Last November, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said that fast-track was a tool the administration could not live without. He said: ``If I'm pressing my counterpart to go to his or bottom line, he or she is going to balk if they feel that Congress has the ability to re-open the deal. My counterparts fear negotiating once with the administration and then a second time with Congress.'' Mr. President, if the previous Administration could so readily reach trade agreements without the benefit of fast-track, then I question the need to impose such procedures, which are inherently undemocratic. I also question what Mr. Zoellick is getting at. I would hope he understands that our system of government has three branches. That our system is based on checks and balances. And I would hope that in the nations with which we are negotiating trade agreements, that we are also promoting an agenda committed to democratic principles. Because when we talk about the fast-track mechanism, that is not the case. They shorten necessary debate. They eliminate the chance for amendment by elected and accountable representatives. They exclude meaningful participation in the legislative process by numerous groups which normally have at least some access to it. For example, free trade is supposed to be good for the consumers. But how often do representatives of consumer organizations help to decide our negotiating goals? How many consumers are on the panels which advise negotiators? Corporations in various sectors help decide what our goals are, which is appropriate. But why not consumers? Consumers might argue that open trade is good; it can help bring higher quality goods and services at lower prices. But consumers might also point out that there need to be rules in an open trading system enforceable rules against downward harmonization of environmental and food-safety standards, enforceable rules against child labor, enforceable rules against the systematic violation of labor and human rights. These are not enforceable objectives of negotiators under this fast track bill. In fact, as negotiating objectives, they need not even be achieved for a trade agreement to come before the Senate and receive fast-track consideration. But they probably would be enforceable if we had a more democratic process for negotiating and considering trade agreements. And if the objectives were not achieved in the agreements, consumer advocates could find a member of the Senate willing to offer an amendment to change the proposal. But not under fast track. I favor open trade. Open trade can contribute significantly to the expansion of wealth an opportunity. It can encourage innovation and improve productivity. It can deliver high quality goods and services to many consumers at better prices. Negotiated properly, trade agreements can help bring these benefits to all trading partners in fair way. However, I remain unconvinced of the need for a fast-track procedure in order for a president to achieve beneficial trade agreements. Fast-track is not about politics. It is not be about providing the authority to a President whose trade policy we support, and not to one we do not. Fast track is about our responsibility as legislators to do our part to ensure fair trade in the global economy. Of course the White House should conduct trade negotiations. But there is no reason to give the White House autocratic power to do so. If a trade agreement cannot withstand the scrutiny of our democratic process, then it does not deserve to be enacted. My second reason for opposing the motion to proceed to this bill is that I do not have confidence that the specific trade agreements that are likely to be negotiated with this fast-track authority would achieve an improvement in the standard of living and quality of life for a majority of Americans. Nor do I believe that such trade agreements would be likely to improve the lives of the majority of the populations of other countries, the countries with whom we trade. Therefore, I do not believe I am likely to support the agreements, or their implementing legislation. Why would I give up my right in advance to amend bills which I do not think I will be able to support? We have had excellent debates over the nation's trade policy in recent years. We had a good debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which ultimately led to the creation of the WTO, over permanent normal trade relations with China, and more recently over trade and trade remedies regarding the steel industry. I would like to take a second to talk in particular about NAFTA and the WTO implementing legislation. I voted against the implementing legislation for those agreements because I believed those bills did not take this country in the right direction in trade policy. The results of those agreements have largely reinforced my view. I continue to regret that I did not have more opportunity to change those major pieces of legislation. I believe they have done us great harm. I did not oppose NAFTA and the WTO because I am a protectionist. I am not. I don't have the slightest interest in building walls at our borders to keep out goods and services. Nor do I fear fair competition from workers and companies operating in other countries. I am not afraid of our neighbors. I don't fear other countries, nor their peoples. I am in favor of open trade, and I believe the President should negotiate trade agreements which lead generally to more open markets, here and abroad. Indeed, I am very aware of the benefits of trade for the economy of Minnesota. I am told about them constantly. We have an extremely international-minded community of corporations, small businesses, working people and farmers in our state, and we have done relatively well in the international economy in recent years. Minnesota has lost some jobs to trade, as have most states. But we also benefit from trade. We benefit from both exports and imports. Exports create jobs, as we all know. But imports are not necessarily a bad thing either. They provide needed competition for consumers, and they also push our domestic companies to become better, to be as productive and efficient as they can be. Open trade can contribute significantly to the expansion of wealth and opportunity, and it tends to reward innovation and productivity. It can deliver higher quality goods and services at better prices. Negotiated properly, trade agreements can help bring all these benefits to all trading partners in a fair way. My position is merely that Congress should exercise its proper role in regulating trade, which is what trade agreements do, so that the rules of international trade reflect American values. That is how American can lead in the world. It is how America should lead in the world. What are American values when it comes to trade? We believe in generally open markets at home and abroad. But we also believe there is a legitimate governmental role in the protection and maintenance of certain fundamental standards when it comes to labor rights. There are certain fundamental standards when it comes to the environment. Standards when it comes to food safety and other consumer protections. Fundamental standards when it comes to democracy. The question is how to pursue these values when we are negotiating trade agreements. The Bush administration believes that commercial property rights are primary in trade agreements, and should be enforceable with trade sanctions, and that environmental and labor rights are secondary. A majority of the Senate appears to agree. I do not. I don't believe most Americans agree with the President and the majority of the Senate on this question. I believe, and I believe that most Americans believe, that fundamental standard of living and quality-of-life issues are exactly what trade policy should be about. That is why strong and enforceable labor rights, environmental, consumer, and human rights protections must be included in all trade agreements, and as principle objectives in all trade negotiations. If trade agreements do not help to uphold democracy and respect for human rights, then they are deficient. That is my position. These should be the pillars of American leadership in the world. At the same time we are told that America must lead on the issue of trade, we are also told that if we do not negotiate trade agreements, even ones which do not live up to our principles, then other countries will do so with each other in our absence. We will be left out. What a contradiction. We must lead, but we must do so by weakening our values. By leaving protection of workers rights out of the agreements we negotiate. By surrendering our principled linkage of human rights concerns to trade policy. Are we saying that when it comes down to it, money is what basically matters? Is that how we should lead the world? Not in my view. Our trade policy should seek to create fair trading arrangements which lift up standards and people in all nations. It should foster competition based on productivity, quality and rising living standards, not competition based on exploitation and a race to the bottom. Protection of basic labor rights, environmental, and health and safety standards are just as important, and just as valid, as any other commercial or economic objectives sought by U.S. negotiators in trade agreements. We need to be encouraging good corporate citizenship, not the flight of capital and decimation of good-paying U.S. jobs. We ought not be pitting workers in Bombay against workers in Baltimore, making them compete against one another to get a decent living. Giving them ultimatums to accept an unlivable wage, or else. It is our responsibility in trade agreements to make the global trading system fair and workable. It is the role of national governments to establish rules within which companies and countries trade. That is what trade agreements do. They set strict rules. If a country does not enforce respect for patents, trade sanctions can be invoked. If a country allows violations of commercial rules, trade sanctions can be invoked. You can bet that U.S. companies get right in the face of our negotiators to make sure that the rules in these agreements which protect their interests are iron clad and will be strictly enforced. Of course it is one of the goals of trade agreements to advance the interests of U.S. employers. But we are elected to help ensure that those agreements allows trade to benefit the interests of a majority of Americans, not only those with significant commercial interests abroad. I would go further and say that we also even have an interest in advancing the interest of a majority of people in other countries. Development abroad means more demand for products and services that we produce. I believe our trade policy can achieve those goals. I wish that we would more often pursue them fully and in a balanced way. Our current trade policy is deeply skewed towards large corporate interests. That view is based on our experience with recent trade agreements. And unfortunately, this bill does little to require our negotiators to do better with new ones. The negative effects of NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, and the WTO, created in 1995, demonstrate the harm in failure to negotiate important safeguards in trade agreements. NAFTA's damaging results have been documented by a range of reliable observers. They include loss of jobs, suppression of wages, and attacks upon and weakening of environmental and health and safety laws. Fast-track promoters want this authority to make it easier to extend NAFTA throughout the hemisphere in a proposed Free Trade of the Americas agreement and to expand the WTO in a new round of multilateral negotiation. If we repeat our past failure to include adequate labor, environmental, and health and safety provisions in new agreements, we only condemn ourselves to seeing some of NAFTA and other trade arrangements worst consequences again. What have some of those consequence been? Let me draw from a report issued by the respected Economic Policy Institute. The report was issued in April of last year and is titled: ``NAFTA at Seven: Its Impact on Workers in all Three Nations.'' E.P.I's study examined the effects of NAFTA seven years after it implementation and concluded that in the United States: ``NAFTA eliminated some 766,000 actual and potential U.S. jobs between 1994 and 2000 because of the rapid growth in the U.S. export deficit with Mexico and Canada.'' Minnesota, according to the report, lost about 13,200 jobs due to the NAFTA related trade deficit. The report went on to say that in the U.S. ``NAFTA has contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.'' A second report released last October argues that when you look at the combined NAFTA and WTO trade-related job losses between 1994-2000, that number is over three million. According to the report, Minnesota lost nearly 50,000 jobs. E.P.I also estimates that 5 to 15 percent of the decline in real median wages can be explained by the increase in trade. NAFTA also has not lived up to promises regarding the environment or domestic areas such as food safety. According to reports released by Public Citizen, since the implementation of NAFTA, U.S. food imports have skyrocketed, while U.S. inspections of imported food have declined significantly. Public Citizen notes that imports of Mexican crops documented by the U.S. government to be at high risk of pesticide contamination have dramatically increased under NAFTA, while inspection has decreased. It argues that U.S. border inspectors have simply been overwhelmed by the large volume of food imports entering the country from Mexico. In a report from September titled: ``NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy,'' Public Citizen documents the frontal assault on American law by foreign investors using rights and privileges given to them in the NAFTA agreement. It states that ``since the agreements enactment, corporate investors in all three NAFTA countries have used these new rights to challenge as NAFTA violations a variety of national, state and local environmental and public health policies, domestic judicial decisions, a federal procurement law and even a government's provision of a parcel delivery services.'' Mr. President, our experience with NAFTA cannot be dismissed. It has contributed to a significant number of job losses and the suppression of real wages for production workers, who make up 70 percent of the workforce. Real wages have gone down in Mexico, too, despite the fact that some workers are performing high-skill, high-productivity labor. Our trade balance has dramatically worsened with respect to Mexico. And a number of U.S. firms not only have used the threat of relocating to Mexico to hold down wages, but some have even closed part of all of a plant in response to union organizing or bargaining. Violations of fundamental democratic principles, as well as of basic human and labor rights, continue to occur regularly in Mexico. And NAFTA's side agreement has not significantly improved Mexico's environment, or that of the U.S. Mexico border region. NAFTA is a bad agreement. But I must also note briefly the tremendous weakness of this fast-track bill itself. The bill reported by the Finance Committee requires only that trading partners enforce existing labor and environmental laws. Nowhere in this bill does it state that parties must strive to ensure that their labor and environmental laws meet international standards. Nowhere in this bill do we demand that countries make progress in protecting the rights of workers and the environment. This is unacceptable. Have we learned nothing? Shouldn't we, at a minimum, require that countries try to do better? The bill requires only that a country enforce its own laws as they stand today, and to add insult to injury, it has a loophole that allows countries to lower labor and environmental standards with impunity. It allows for strong enforcement of the provisions on intellectual property and other commercial rights, but then provides no adequate enforcement for violations of the labor and environmental provisions. In the real world, the effect of weak labor standards coupled with no enforcement mechanism means that while a U.S. company could easily bring a case against a country for not enforcing laws on copyright protection, that same country could fail to enforce minimum wage laws or even lower the minimum wage, and neither the U.S., nor a worker who is affected, could bring a case for violation of the trade agreement. I believe this provision shows exactly whose interests this bill is meant to benefit, and it's not the working man. And unfortunately, the drafters have not learned from the mistakes of the NAFTA agreement when it comes to investor lawsuits. Just like under NAFTA, this bill does not forbid investor lawsuits that challenge domestic laws on the grounds of expropriation--expropriation that is not even limited to the long standing legal precedent that it must involve more than just a diminution in value or loss of profits. Today, as we debate the motion to proceed, a lawsuit is underway between a Canadian company and the U.S. government dealing with this very issue. Under NAFTA, the Canadian company Methanex has sued the U.S. government for $970 million in future profits due to California's banning of the chemical MTBE, which Methanex produces. Small leaks of MTBE from storage tanks, pipeline accidents, and car accidents were found to have contaminated 30 public drinking water systems in California. California banned the chemical on safety grounds and now we, the American people, are supposed to re-imburse the company that made the chemical for their lost profits? Absolutely not. In 2000, another Canadian company, ADF Group Inc., filed a complaint using NAFTA's Chapter 11 on investment to challenge the federal requirement that U.S.-made steel be used in all federally funded highway projects. The case both challenges federal procurement policies and attacks a part of U.S. law that directly benefits American workers. Regardless of the outcome of this case, the fact that a private company could use NAFTA to challenge a popular domestic law that the U.S. has routinely tried to exempt from trade agreements, should trouble us all. The fast-track bill would do absolutely nothing to prevent more challenges to our Buy America Law in the future, and it would do nothing to guarantee that trade agreements will not be used to challenge laws we pass to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our workers. Proponents of fast-track argue that these inadequate negotiating objectives will produce concrete gains in protecting workers' rights and the environment in future trade agreements, notably the FTAA, the WTO, and pending agreements with Chile and Singapore. But the Bush Administration has provided no basis for confidence that it is will willing to expend the necessary energy and political capital to actually move workers' rights and environmental provisions forward in any of these arenas. In fact, every word and action from the Bush Administration since it has been in office points to the contrary. It is simply untrustworthy when it comes to trade policy. Section 131 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, as amended, directs the President to ``seek the establishment . . . in the WTO . . . of a working party to examine the relationship of internationally recognized worker rights . . . to the articles, objectives, and related instruments of the GATT 1947 and of the WTO.'' Despite this crystal clear mandate from the U.S. Congress, the Bush Administration has refused even to propose a working party on worker rights at the WTO. U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick told the House Ways and Means Committee on October 9th that such a proposal ``would kill our ability to launch the round . . . It has no chance whatsoever.'' The truth is, the Uruguay Round Agreements did not ask the President or his Trade Representative to evaluate the potential success of seeking a working party; it said the President ``shall seek'' such a party. Why would we give this President authority to negotiate trade agreements on an expedited basis, with no amendments, when it appears he already doesn't follow the instructions mandated by law from this body? This Administration has publicly announced it will not enforce provisions negotiated in good faith by the Clinton Administration in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The Jordan agreement incorporated enforceable workers' rights and environmental protections in the core of the agreement subject to the same dispute resolution provisions as the commercial aspects. Yet in July, USTR Zoellick exchanged letters with the Jordanian ambassador to the U.S., in which both pledged not to use trade sanctions to resolve disputes under the agreement. This effectively gutted the path-breaking labor and environmental provisions in the Jordan agreement, since they are the only provisions not also covered by WTO rules, which authorize sanctions separately. Also, the draft ministerial WTO declaration prepared for the next ministerial contains no progress on workers' rights whatsoever. There is not even a commitment for a formal cooperation agreement with the ILO, which would be a very minimal step forward, yet the Administration has not publicly criticized this aspect of the declaration. The draft text of the FTAA, released in April, also contains no language whatsoever, not even as a proposal, linking trade benefits to workers' rights or environmental protection. If the FTAA negotiations continue on their current path, even the modest workers' provisions now included in the Generalized System of Preferences--which currently applies to virtually every Latin American country--will be rendered moot. In regard to the on-going Chile and Singapore negotiations, the Bush Administration has apparently retreated from the Jordan agreement commitments which were to be the baseline for the labor and environmental provisions of any new agreement. It has also failed to bring forth any proposals on labor and environment in the negotiations. Chilean negotiators have told reporters that the U.S. is only asking for monetary fines to enforce labor and environmental standards. This falls short of even the modest Jordan standard. It is clear this Administration has no commitment to labor rights or the environment in its trade policy. In fact, it doesn't see them as fundamental principles necessary to achieve fairness in the global trading system--it sees them as ``potential new forms of protectionism.'' This is what USTR Zoellick said in a speech to business associations in New Delhi last year. He also told the audience: ``We can work cooperatively to thwart efforts to employ labor and environmental concerns for protectionist purposes.'' Mr. President, we can not trust what this Administration says it will do when negotiating agreements because quite honestly, it doesn't believe what it is saying when it negotiates them. Worker's rights and protection of the environment in trade agreements are secondary to commercial interests. Period. They are secondary when it comes to workers and the environment abroad and they are secondary when it comes to workers' and the environment here. For example, we have watched workers in the steel industry bear the brunt of ineffective trade policies and more recently, inadequate trade remedies on the part of this Administration. Although the President's recent Section 201 decision brought relief to some segments of the United States steel industry, it did nothing for Minnesota's Iron Range--nor for the iron ore industry in Michigan. While the President imposed a fairly significant tariff on every other product category for which the International Trade Commission ( ITC) found injury, for steel slab he decided to impose ``tariff rate quotas.'' This brings us virtually no relief. Nearly 7 million tons of steel slab can continue to be dumped on our shores before any tariff is assessed. The injury will continue. Moreover, already some of our trading partners--Brazil, for example--are angling for exemptions that would drive the quota levels even higher. And, frankly, I fear this Administration might listen too sympathetically to such pleas. In fact, members of the Senate's Steel Caucus recently received a letter warning of potentially devastating impact of grants of exclusions awarded by the Administration. As the President of the United Steelworkers of America, Mr. Gerard, says, ``It would be tragic if having traveled so far to provide the industry and its workers and communities desperately needed relief, that the Administration now wasted this opportunity by making unwarranted exclusions at the behest of our trading partners.'' Frankly, the commitment to protect domestically produced iron ore and the blast furnace capacity to process that iron ore is shockingly absent. We must remain vigilant. All of this leads me to the final reason I oppose moving to the fast- track bill. It is obvious this nation has more urgent priorities than debating fast-track authority. America's manufacturing industry is in a deep, long-lasting crisis that threatens the future of American prosperity. Manufacturing job losses since July 2000 have totaled 1.3 million. Manufacturing employment peaked in March 1998 at 18.9 million, but since then has declined by more than 1.6 million jobs to a total of 17.3 million. Last year, total employment in manufacturing fell below 18 million for the first time since June 1965. From 1994 to the present, growing trade deficits have eliminated a net total of 3 million actual and potential jobs from the U.S. economy--nearly 50,000 of those jobs in Minnesota, representing 2% of the state's labor force. Let's be clear. This crisis is a result of a failure of economic and trade policy. We should be addressing this failure, not granting fast- track authority for major new trade negotiations. Domestic companies are hurting and domestic jobs are being lost by the thousands because of unfair trading practices not adequately curbed or punished by our domestic trade policies. What's perhaps most troublesome is that the trade-related losses of the past decade happened during times of economic prosperity so their effect was masked. I think we are just starting to feel the real impact of this nation's misguided trade policies. And now the Administration wants even more authority--fast track authority--to perpetuate these misguided policies? Where are their priorities? Do they even recognize the needs of workers in America? We must address the condition of the American worker first. Trade Adjustment Assistance is critical for thousands of American workers and their families, and it should not be boot-strapped to a flawed, undemocratic bill that will cause more long-term hardship. I support the trade adjustment assistance portion of this bill. It will provide important assistance that is urgently needed. But, I believe we should address TAA separately, on its own merits. Congress established TAA in 1962 to assist workers whose job loss is associated with an increase in imports. Workers are eligible for up to 52 weeks of income support, provided they are enrolled in re-training. The program also provides job search and relocation assistance. Despite low unemployment through the second half of the 1990s, the number of workers eligible for TAA has increased. In 2000, approximately 35,000 workers received TAA benefits. Unfortunately, existing TAA eligibility requirements have not kept up with the changing times. TAA covers too few workers and fails to address major problems that workers and communities face. The TAA provision in this package would help change that. It would broaden eligibility and expand benefits, providing benefits to secondary workers, including suppliers and downstream providers. For example, iron ore workers who faced layoffs because of increased steel imports would be covered. TAA eligibility would also be expanded to include workers affected by shifts in production, as well to those affected by increased imports. It would increase income maintenance from 52 to 78 weeks; substantially increase funds available for training; ensure workers who take a part-time job don't lose training benefits; and increase assistance for job relocation. The expanded program would link TAA recipients to child care and health care benefits under existing programs, and provide assistance to recipients in making COBRA payments. When you lose your job you lose your health insurance, and unfortunately that often means you lose your healthcare. While I was in Minnesota last summer, I heard from working men and women who had lost their jobs because of the economic downturn. In the fall I spoke to many who had become unemployed as a direct consequence of September 11th. Many of them told me that they were eligible for COBRA assistance but couldn't afford it. The average cost of COBRA coverage for a family is $700, more than half the monthly unemployment benefit. 80% of dislocated workers don't purchase it because they can't afford it. They end up having to make an awful choice: the choice between food and clothes for their families and having health insurance. This is unacceptable. We must provide assistance to the unemployed to ensure they have affordable health insurance. The TAA provision in this bill would recognize the special circumstances faced by family farmers, ranchers and independent fishermen, and would seek to provide assistance and technical support before they lose their businesses. It would provide wage insurance for older workers and help communities adjust to devastating job losses. Mr. President, entire communities are often affected by the closing of one textile factory or steel mill. We must coordinate federal assistance to these communities, help them develop strategic plans following job losses, and provide technical assistance, loans and grants. As of December, in Minnesota over 3800 workers have applied for Trade Adjustment Assistance as a result of NAFTA. Entire companies have relocated to Mexico or Canada, or workers have been laid off do the increase in imports from those countries. We must guarantee that all Americans benefit from trade by providing adequate trade adjustment assistance. But even that is not enough. We must protect the standard of living and quality of life of the American worker. We must address decline in real median wages and the weakening of workers rights in this country. And we must do so before we even think about fast-track authority. Why is it, for example, that we are proceeding to debate the need for expedited review of trade deals this Administration negotiates when we have yet to address the long over-due increase in the federal minimum wage. Have we considered the irony of this? Expedited review of trade agreements that cause us to lose jobs, that undermine worker safety and security around the globe, before we debate a paltry $1.50 increase in the minimum wage over three years? Poverty has nearly doubled among full-time, year-round workers since the late 1970s--from about 1.3 million then to 2.4 million in 2000. There are millions of mothers and fathers toiling 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, who are still unable to meet their families' basic needs--food, medical care, housing, clothing. More than 32 million people in this country--more than 12 million of those children--were poor in 1999. A key part of the problem is an unacceptably low minimum wage. Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn only $10,712 a year--more than $4,300 below the poverty line for a family of three. The current minimum wage fails to provide enough income to enable minimum wage workers to afford adequate housing in any area of this country. Mr. President, every day the minimum wage is not increased it continues to lose value, and workers fall farther and farther behind. Minimum wage workers have lost all of their gains since we last raised the minimum wage in 1997. Today, the real value of the minimum wage is now $3.00 below what it was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be more than $8 an hour today, not $5.15. Since 1968, the ratio of the minimum wage to average hourly earnings dropped from 56% to 36%. Members of Congress acted to raise their own pay by $4,900 last year--the fourth pay increase in six years. Yet we have not found time to provide any pay increase to the lowest paid workers, an increase that would add $3,000 to the income of full-time, year-round workers. Don't those who are most vulnerable in our society, those who are absolutely struggling to make ends meet, those who every day are forced to choose between food, clothing, shelter, or health care for their families, don't they deserve the modest increase in the minimum wage that is proposed in the legislation that has been stalled for far too long. A gain of $3,000 would have an enormous impact on minimum wage workers and their families. It would be enough money for a low-income family of three to buy: over 15 months of groceries; over 8 months of rent; over 7 months of utilities; or put a family member through a 2- year community college program. History clearly shows that raising the minimum wage has not had any negative impact on jobs, employment, or inflation. Rather, in the three years since the last minimum wage increase, the economy experienced its strongest growth in over three decades. Nearly 11 million new jobs were added, at a pace of 218,000 per month. Nearly 9 million workers would directly benefit from the proposed minimum wage increase, many of whom are raising children. Thirty-five percent of these workers are the sole earners for their families. Sixty-one percent are women. Sixteen percent are African American and twenty percent are Hispanic American. Finally, since a minimum wage increase goes to families who need every dollar for basic needs, raising the wage will provide a much- needed spur to our slowly recovering economy. Fifty-eight percent of the benefit of the 1996 and 1997 increases went to families in the bottom 40% of income groups. Over one-third of the benefit went to the poorest families, those in the bottom 20%. A fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. This body should not be proceeding to this wrong-headed fast track measure at all. But at the least we should not be doing so in advance of considering a minimum wage increase to correct some of losses suffered as the result of our shameful inaction in the past. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. I oppose the motion to proceed to fast-track authority for all the reasons I have laid out here today: the fast track mechanism is undemocratic, it is unlikely I will be able to support trade agreements negotiated under fast-track authority given the consequences of past trade agreements, the track-record of this Administration so far, and the text of the Trade Promotion Authority Act, and I believe is irresponsible to discuss fast-track authority before addressing the urgent needs of workers in this nation. I know that I am not alone in my opposition to fast-track authority. And I know that proponents of it will try to cast this debate as one of protectionists versus free traders. Nothing can be farther than the truth. The debate today is one of free trade versus fair trade. I know the difference. The American people know the difference. The debate today is about the responsibility of this nation to ensure justice in the global trading regime, to ensure democracy, human rights and all the values that make this nation great are not swept aside in the name of trade promotion. And it is about ensuring the American worker is not swept under the rug in the name of free trade. Mr. President, Americans and especially the American worker, understand the link between promoting human rights and democracy and promoting free trade. In fact, they demand that link. We have seen it in the street of Seattle, Washington; Genoa, Italy; and just two weeks ago here in Washington, DC. At the grassroots level, people are demanding that trade be more than the simple movement of capital. They are demanding that it be more than the protection of intellectual and investor property rights. They are demanding more than what we see in this fast-track bill. My position on trade agreements is their position. It is not ``no, never.'' It is ``yes, if.'' Yes to trade agreements if they protect democracy, human rights and internationally recognized labor rights; yes to trade agreements if they guarantee minimum safeguards for the environment; yes to trade agreements if they do not abandon family farmers to competition from export-oriented mega- farms abroad operating free from any environmental regulation; yes to major trade agreements if they do not displace thousands of workers without any adjustment assistance. I oppose this motion to proceed and I will oppose the bill when it comes to the floor. To reiterate, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says it is not the President but the Congress that shall regulate commerce with foreign nations. I am not willing to shirk my responsibility of being a part of shaping a trade policy that can dramatically affect the quality of lives of families and people I represent in Minnesota. I do not understand how we could agree to a fast-track procedure whereby we could have a trade agreement which would entail actually changing some of our domestic laws that deal with consumer protection, that deal with worker rights, that deal with a whole range of issues, and that we basically surrender our rights to have the opportunity to have an amendment considered on the floor of the Senate. It makes no sense whatsoever. This legislation locks us into fast-track rules now for debates and votes we will have later. The administration is talking about agreements with Chile and Singapore, the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. In other words, we are deciding now whether to establish special and highly restrictive rules which will govern our debate on votes on pieces of legislation, votes that will take place later; an expedited schedule, no amendments, a limited number of debates. I don't understand it. We can have trade legislation without this procedure. With fast track, any kind of trade agreement can come to the Senate floor. It can affect environmental laws that we pass in our States--in Delaware, in Minnesota. It can affect food safety legislation that we might pass in our States or pass in the Congress. It can overturn and declare trade illegal. It can be a trade agreement that we make with different countries, that further depress wages in our country. That means many working families will lose their jobs. That means no respect for basic child labor rights. And where there is no respect for human rights, there is no respect for democracy. All of that can happen, and we are going to say through this legislation that we forfeit our right as Senators to represent people in our States and try and amend these agreements so we can provide protection for the people we represent? I say to colleagues, on principle alone, I oppose this. By the way, I opposed the Democratic administration. It is not a matter of politics. I oppose any President having this authority. I don't believe we should give up what is not only our constitutional right but our responsibility as legislators. Robert Zoellick discussed why he needs fast track: If I am pressing my counterpart to go to his bottom line, he or she will balk if they feel the Congress has the ability to reopen the deal. My counterparts fear negotiating once with the administration and a second time with the Congress. From the floor of the Senate, I say for Mr. Zoellick, without acrimony, we have a system of checks and balances. We have three branches of Government. As a matter of fact, during the decade of the 1990s, we negotiated close to 200 trade agreements only two of which used the fast track procedure. I have a list of them. The list goes on and on and on. Let me make a second point, which is more hard hitting. When I look at past trade agreements and some of the empirical evidence, I don't want to give up my right to amend future trade agreements which I think will have the same detrimental or an even more detrimental effect on families in the State of Minnesota or, for that matter, around the country. Let's just take NAFTA. The Economic Policy Institute, a highly respected think-tank, issued a report last year entitled ``NAFTA At Seven: Its Impact on Workers in all Three Nations.'' The report says: NAFTA eliminated some 766,000 actual and potential U.S. jobs between 1994 and 2000 because of the rapid growth in the U.S. export deficit with Mexico and Canada. Minnesota lost 13,200 jobs due to the NAFTA-related deficit. The report went on to say that in the United States: NAFTA has contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions and reduced fringe benefits. A second report released last October argues that when you look at the combined NAFTA and WTO trade-related job losses between 1994 and 2000--and I voted for neither agreement--the number is over 3 million. According to that report, Minnesota lost 50,000 jobs. The EPI estimates that 5 percent to 15 percent of the decline in real median wages can be explained by this increase in trade. What are we saying? I will tell you something about potash workers. I was in Brainerd. It is so heartbreaking that 700 workers are out of work. When I called the CEO, he said to me: Senator, we can deal with any of the U.S. companies. We got killed by trade policy. In greater Minnesota they were shut down and lost $20-an-hour jobs with health care benefits. LTV's iron ore workers--slab steel is coming in, produced way below the cost of production, and 1,300 workers are out of work, having lost well-paying jobs with good health care benefits. Apparel workers, textile workers, auto workers continue to lose their jobs. In all due respect, we are supposed to be the party that represents working people. We are supposed to be the party for jobs. I fail to see how we live up to this responsibility by signing on to a trade agreement where we do not even have the right to offer amendments. These companies say to workers in this country: if you do not give up some of your health care benefits, or if you do not agree to keep your wages down, we are gone. They do not say to workers in Minnesota: we are going to North Carolina. They are leaving North Carolina, too. They are saying to American families: we are gone. We are going abroad. We are going to Juarez, or Singapore, or wherever. We are going to Vietnam. We are going to Cambodia where we can pay people 30 cents a day; we can hire little children; we can work them 18 hours a day; we can imprison people if they try to organize and form a union, and we can torture people and violate people's human rights. There are some 70 governments today in the world that systematically practice torture. Then, what these companies say to these countries is: OK, we will come to your country, but if you dare ever pass legislation allowing people the right to organize and bargain collectively, then we will leave, or we will not come. You had better not have any environmental standards that make it hard on us, or then we will not stay. You had better not pass any laws that protect little children so they don't have to work 18 hours a day at age 11, or we will not invest in your country. We are given all these arguments about how we should be internationalists. I am an internationalist. My father was born in Odessa, Ukraine. My father's family moved to stay one step ahead of the pogroms. He moved to Siberia in czarist Russia and then came here at age of 17. He fled czarist Russia. There was a revolution. He was going to go back, and his parents told him: Don't come back, the Communists have taken over, Kerenski is out and Lenin is in. He never saw his family again, and they, in all likelihood, were murdered by Stalin. My father spoke 10 languages fluently. I don't. But I am an internationalist. That is not the issue. I know we are part of an international economy. I just want to ask, are there not any new rules that go with this? Just as 100 years ago when we moved from a farm economy to a national economy to more of an industrial economy--remember what happened? The women said: We want the right to vote. And then workers organized for an 8-hour day and 40-hour week, and then other citizens, the farmers and Populists alliance, said: we want some antitrust action; these trusts are destroying our lives. And there was the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, and then other people said: we want direct election of Senators. There was a group of citizens who in a democracy demanded what they as citizens in a democracy had the courage to demand, which was: As we move from an agrarian to a national economy, make that national economy work not just for these huge companies, but for all of us, for our families and our children. Now we are in the 21st century. What we are saying is, with this new international economy, can't we make sure that this new economy works not just for large multinational corporations? Can't we make sure that this new international economy works for workers--workers here and workers in developing countries? Can't we make sure it works for the environment and works for human rights and democracy? It breaks my heart that we are told we can lead, but we can't lead with American values. What we are hearing from the administration and some of the proponents of this is: We have to do this. We have to lead. But we dare not--and believe me, I will have an amendment on the floor that will do this--we dare not tie this to human rights or democracy. There cannot be any mention of human rights or democracy in any of these trade agreements. We are asked to lead, but not lead with our values. We are asked to lead, but not stand for human rights. We are asked to lead, but not stand for democracy. As a first-generation American, the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution from Russia, I reject that proposition. There is much I could say that is more technical, and I will as we get to amendments, but I have one other question. Why are we on this legislation? How about first raising the minimum wage? In the coffee shops of Minnesota, when I walk in with Sheila and have a cup of coffee and a piece of pie, people don't say: Are you going to get to fast track? People talk to me about wages. They talk to me a lot about education. How about a debate about when we are going to fully fund special education and live up to our commitment? The Presiding Officer, as a former Governor, knows what that is all about in Delaware. How about a debate about affordable prescription drugs for seniors, and for others as well? We should be able to reimport drugs from Canada. Farmers and consumers should be able to reimport drugs back from Canada, if they have met all their FDA requirements. It helps not only senior citizens but all of our citizens. How about going from $5.15 an hour which, if it kept up with inflation, would be $8 an hour--$1.50 over the next 3 years? In the State of Minnesota, to be able to afford housing at minimum wage, you would have to work 127 hours a week. There are not 127 hours in a week. It is just unbelievable. We are the Democratic Party. I am, today, speaking for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Housing? In the State of Minnesota now, in the metro area, you will be lucky if you get a two-bedroom apartment for under $900. Childcare? If you had a 2-year-old and 3-year-old, you would be very lucky if your expenses were less than $1,000 a month. Of course, childcare workers make $6, $7, or $8 an hour with no health care benefits. You can't support yourself on minimum wage. If you are a single parent, that takes almost all of your income. It doesn't even meet the question of health care costs, food, transportation, and maybe once in a blue moon to go to a movie, or go out to eat. Why aren't we focusing on the basic concerns of working families? I make this appeal on the floor of the Senate. Why aren't we talking about raising the minimum wage? Why aren't we talking about minimum wage jobs? Why aren't we talking about affordable prescription drugs? Why aren't we talking about health security for all? Why aren't we talking about how to meet these exorbitant health care expenses that small businesses can't meet? Why aren't we talking about what we are going to do as more and more of our neighbors, parents, or grandparents live to be 80 and 85 to make sure they can stay at home and live at home with dignity and not be forced to go to nursing homes? Why aren't we talking to our health care providers and to our physicians about adequate Medicare? Why aren't we talking about how we can have more support for nurses and attract more teachers? Why aren't we talking about retaining more teachers? Why aren't we talking about doing more for K-12? Why aren't we talking about affordable higher education, how we can make sure that every child by kindergarten knows how to spell his names, knows the alphabet, the colors, the shapes, and the sizes when they are ready to go to school? Why in the world are we not focusing on these issues that are so important to the vast majority of the people we represent? Why are we talking about fast track? Why are we calling upon all of us to give up our constitutional authority to amend trade agreements; to give up our responsibility to represent the people back in our States in case these trade agreements are antithetical to their rights as workers, or to their environment, or to their safety, or to their children; or to the rights of consumers? I wouldn't do it for any President. Why don't I just lay my cards out on the table. Forgive me. I wouldn't do it for this President. I don't see that this administration is at all committed to raising the minimum wage, or to making sure people have the right to organize and bargain collectively for labor law reform, or, for that matter, to protecting against repetitive stress injury, and to ensuring a safe workplace. I don't think there is a great commitment on the part of this administration on behalf of the environment, consumers, or ordinary people who do not have all the capital and who make the huge contributions. I don't see a whole lot of commitment. Now we are going to give this administration fast-track authority? I didn't vote to give it to the last administration. We can't come out here with an amendment to try to make things better. We can't fight to represent the people back in our States. And the trade agreements that I have seen so far--every single one--do not represent fair trade. They don't have child labor standards. They don't have basic human rights standards. They don't have any standards for protection of the environment. At the end of the day, there are depressed wages for workers not only in our country but in the developing countries as well. I think we can do better. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Fiona Wright during the debate on H.R. 3009.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an important amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden regarding carbon sequestration. The Energy Policy Reform Act and the debates we have had on it have sought to achieve an integration of energy and environmental policy including new and far reaching provisions to help this nation meet its international obligations to address global climate change. The amendment I propose today with Senator Wyden provides an important complement to provisions in S. 517, the Farm Bill that already passed the Senate, and the President's recent announced plans to address global climate change. These other provisions would advance research on carbon sequestration from the agriculture and forest sectors, establish credible methods for measuring carbon sequestered for individual projects, and create a national greenhouse gas emissions database and registry at the project level. The amendment takes a comprehensive view of both carbon sequestration and carbon storage--beyond the project level--to address what is happening over time to release and sink carbon for the full range of land uses, management practices and natural resources. The amendment creates a competitive grant pilot program for state and multi-state areas in a range of regional forest, agriculture and ecosystem settings. The purpose is to help us better understand what is needed for a national carbon sequestration inventory and accounting system that would be credible and cost-effective. The amendment will enable us to assess the overall effectiveness and potential contributions of new programs and policies to encourage actions which offer a broad range of benefits to the environment. To do this, the amendment seeks to translate scientific information into easily understood means for landowners and others to apply in making decisions on their current practices. This information will distinguish practices which offer additional environmental benefits that may be associated with carbon storage or sequestration, such as flood and erosion prevention, soil conservation, fertility and productivity improvements, improved water quality and management, protection and restoration of ecosystems and habitat, and improved management of agricultural lands and forests including reforestation practices. It also would include information for landowners and others on how to assess the economic and financial costs and benefits of land uses that sequester or store carbon. If we make this investment now, within the next 5 years we should be prepared to identify real incentives not only for forest and agriculture but also for natural resources and land use management which will show up also in our national accounts. I also anticipate that some policy changes supported by this information may enable our agriculture and forest sectors to realize an economic gain from the practices themselves. The practices that will be encouraged by this amendment make good common sense and good economic sense. The State of Minnesota, with its rich forest and agricultural base and water resources, has a lot to lose from global warming. While we have much to lose, we also have much we can contribute to reducing the problem of global climate change and gain in the process. If done properly, carbon storage and sequestration offer a welcome opportunity to draw together the interests and talents of the environmental community, agriculture, forest and timber products industries. Carbon sequestration is not the only or even major answer to our challenges in addressing climate change, but it is an important complement to other steps we must take to increase energy efficiency and conservation, increase use of renewable fuels and put in place an effective program for greenhouse gas emissions control. This research must involve a wide range of perspectives and interests. The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is directed to work in collaboration with other federal agencies, on all aspects of carrying out the purposes of the amendment. These agencies should include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and the Interior, as well as several agencies within the Department of Agriculture, including the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, the Forest Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Because forest and agriculture sectors play such a critical role in carbon storage and sequestration, the pilot areas should have a high percentage of land that is forest or cropland. The U.S. Department of Agriculture already tracks this information through its Natural Resources Conservation Service National Resources Inventory, the last being carried out in 1997. Pilot State or multi-State areas should not only be capable of carrying out the research on a technical level, they should have demonstrated or be interested in pursuing the kind of policies and programs to encourage environmentally beneficial carbon storage and sequestration practices that this amendment seeks to advance. This research takes research and information already available at different levels of government, and in many different groups, and integrates it in a way that we can develop and assess these means of encouraging helpful practices. The amendment calls for an approach to carbon storage and sequestration accounting based on sound science. It is our intention that the Peer Review process called for in the amendment would include public and private science and policy groups as well as by the user community. This peer review is important particularly in regard to translating science into information in a form that provides easy access to landowners to encourage them to consider environmentally beneficial carbon storage and sequestration practices in their decision making. Eligible entities for the pilot program grants would include land grant colleges or universities as defined both by the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 and tribal land grant institutions established through the Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994. These research institutions, as well as others with demonstrated experience in the field should be included among the eligible entities as should state or state consortia or non-profits be considered for these grants, especially since we want to see the results used to move forward on the policy and program front to encourage these practices. The grant-eligible programs should also demonstrate that they would include some means of ensuring the participation of governmental and non governmental interests that would be affected by the pilot program. Carbon sequestration and storage potentially serve both environmental and economic interests. I have letters of endorsement from the American Farmland Trust, the National Farmer's Union, The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Environmental Defense and Nature Conservancy, as well as from leading soil and forest scientists in Minnesota, Kansas, Ohio, and Oregon. Many others who are prominent in the environmental, agricultural, forest, and research communities believe this amendment takes us in the right direction. Amendment No. 3230

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I commend to the Senate for confirmation tonight the nomination of Justice Joan Ericksen Lancaster to serve as a judge of the United States District Court in Minnesota. I also thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch for moving this nomination through the Senate so quickly. Chairman Leahy has been criticized by some Republicans, at times grossly unfairly, for the pace with which certain nominees have come through the committee. This nomination, which has enjoyed broad bipartisan support here in the Senate, has moved very quickly, and for that I am very grateful. It is a model of how this process should work, and I would hope the White House would see it in those terms as the President makes future Federal judicial nominations. The Senate will have no problem offering its advise and consent to experienced, able jurists like Joan Lancaster, with longstanding records of public service in their communities, who are deeply committed to equal justice and equal opportunity for all Americans. But when the President nominates controversial figures with very extreme views, or records which call into question their commitment to equal opportunity and equal justice, the Senate will take more time to scrutinize those records and to determine if they deserve its consent, and reject them if they don't. Justice Lancaster's qualifications are outstanding. She is currently serving with distinction as an Associate Justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court, and has held that position since 1998. She has also served as a Judge of the 4th District Court in Hennepin County for three years, and as a Partner at the law firm of Leonard, Street and Deinard in Minneapolis for two years before that. Particularly relevant to the position for which she is being confirmed tonight are her ten years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Minnesota, where she provided leadership in both the civil and criminal divisions. Justice Lancaster's compassion, her deep commitment to creating a better, more just society and her record of public service are enormously impressive. She has lived what she speaks. She as a co-chair of the Governor's Task Force on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, chaired the Minnesota Juvenile Justice Services Task Force, chaired a number of important committees on the operations of the court, and has served on the boards of a host of other important Minnesota-based organizations dedicated to the causes of children, the legal system, and education. Her stints as a distinguished law professor at the University of Minnesota and the William Mitchell College of Law highlight her impressive intellectual and courtroom talents. Through these and her many other professional accomplishments, Justice Lancaster has earned the high regard of her peers. She received a well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association and she was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously, and has from the start enjoyed my enthusiastic support and that of Senator Dayton. In my conversations with judges, and lawyers who have both practiced with an argued before Justice Lancaster, it is clear that she is widely respected and is seen as a brilliant, thoughtful and independent jurist with a deep commitment to justice and to the American promise of equal opportunity for all before the bar of justice. I thank Representative Ramstad and President Bush for this excellent nomination, and again than Senator Leahy for moving her quickly through the process. I congratulate Justice Lancaster and her wonderful children, John and Claire, whom I have had the pleasure to meet. I know Justice Lancaster will continue to serve as an outstanding jurist in Minnesota, and I offer her my warn congratulations, anticipating her confirmation. I commend her to the full Senate enthusiastically, and am confident she'll receive an overwhelming vote of support. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Presiding Officer, Senator Dayton--unless he is going to be able to join me on the floor--we congratulate Justice Joan Ericksen Lancaster, who will now serve as a judge for the United States District Court in Minnesota. She is highly qualified. We thank Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch for moving this so quickly. We thank all of our colleagues. I want to say a special hello to her wonderful children, John and Claire. I believe she is watching this proceeding. You should be proud, Judge Lancaster.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I did not hear the request.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate the 13th birthday of Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the boy recognized by the Dalai Lama in 1995 as the 11th reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, Tibet's second highest spiritual leader. As you may know, shortly after the Dalai Lama recognized Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the Panchen Lama in 1995, the Chinese government abducted him with his family. He was 6 years old at the time. Today, the Panchen Lama remains in detention, and his whereabouts are unknown. For the past 7 years repeated requests from both governments and private humanitarian organizations to meet with the boy have been denied. It is intolerable that the Chinese leadership is using this young child in their efforts to tighten their grip on Tibet. On his 13th birthday, he remains one of the world's youngest political and religious prisoners. Tibetans are persecuted for their religious beliefs. Prior to the Chinese invasion of 1950, Tibet was a deeply religious society. Religion remains an integral part of the daily lives of Tibetans, and it forms the social fabric connecting them to the land. Since the Chinese take over, religious practice and belief have come at a great cost. Over 6,000 monasteries and sacred places have been destroyed by the Chinese. Religious leaders are incarcerated with great frequency. They are forced to perform ``reeducation labor,'' and often subjected to torture, including electric shock, rape, and other serious forms of abuse. The Chinese Government continues to exert power over Tibetans by requiring monks to sign a declaration rejecting independence for Tibet, rejecting the Panchen Lama, rejecting and denouncing the Dalai Lama, recognizing the unity of China and Tibet, and ignoring the voice of America. Monks who refuse to accept these terms risk expulsion from their monasteries, or possible incarceration. Fleeing is the only other option for Tibetans who refuse to accept these terms. Historically, up to 3,000 Tibetans enter Nepal each year to escape the conditions. Religious persecution is not the only type of persecution in Tibet. Tibetans are also subject to political imprisonment. A few months ago, I had the honor of meeting with Ngawang Choephel, a former Fulbright scholar who taught at Middlebury College in Vermont, who was imprisoned in 1995. What was his crime, the crime for which his brave mother labored intensively to have him freed? He was arrested and jailed for espionage while filming a documentary on performing arts in Tibet. After serving more than 6 years, he was released on a medical parole. Regrettably, his story is emblematic of the daily struggles faced by Tibetans. China has consistently used excessive military force to stifle dissent, which has resulted in untold cases of arbitrary arrests, imprisonment, torture, and execution. Moreover, the Tibetan people are denied the rights to self determination, freedom of speech, assembly, movement, expression and travel, rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Population transfers, environmental degradation, forced abortions and sterilizations, and the systematic destruction of the Tibetan language and culture continue unabated. The problems in Tibet go beyond continuing human rights violations. As long as the Tibetan people are denied the right to self determination, human rights violations and political unrest will continue. For almost 40 years Chinese oppression in Tibet has been met by resistance. However, despite over four decades of force and intimidation, the Tibetan people have proven again and again that they will not succumb. Until a negotiated settlement is reached, Tibet will remain a contentious and potentially destabilizing issue for China. The only way to settle the question of Tibet is for the Chinese leadership to enter into negotiations with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. Both publicly and privately, the Dalai Lama has stated his willingness to negotiate with the Chinese in his own words, ``anywhere, anytime, and with no pre-conditions.'' Thus far, Beijing has refused to even consider talking to him. Despite the fact that the Dalai Lama is respected worldwide as a spiritual leader and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Chinese Communist party leaders continue to eschew dialogue. Next week, Chinese President Hu Jintao will visit the United States for the first time. Many believe that he will be the next Premier of China. As you may know, Hu Jintao was the Party Secretary in the Tibet Autonomous Region, TAR, from 1988 to 1992. During his tenure as Party Secretary, Hu Jintao made a name for himself as a tough administrator of Beijing's control mechanisms in Tibet, including the use of deadly force against unarmed Tibetan protestors. Despite Hu Jintao's record as TAR Party Secretary, I, like some Tibetans, remain hopeful that he can play a positive role in the future. Because Hu has direct experience with the sentiments of Tibetans, he could be more responsive to Tibetan interests than past Chinese leaders. On November 9, 2001, Hu told journalists in Berlin, ``I have been in Tibet for almost 4 years and I am very familiar with the situation.'' It is a positive factor that Hu Jintao knows conditions in Tibet from first-hand experience. In light of his visit, I am introducing a resolution in the Senate calling for the release of the Panchen Lama. With this action, I am also hoping to see a serious and substantive discussion of the continued human rights violations in China and Tibet. I will continue to communicate these objectives directly to the administration and the Chinese leadership. Specifically, I strongly believe we should urge the Chinese leadership: To release the Panchen Lama and allow him to pursue his traditional role at Tashi Lhunpo monastery in Tibet; and to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives in order to find a negotiated solution for genuine autonomy that respects the rights of all Tibetans. Today, across America Tibetans and their supporters are staging events to draw international attention and support for Tibet. This includes five Tibetan men who are biking from the state capitol in St. Paul, MN, to the Chinese Embassy in Chicago. There, they are calling for the release of the Panchen Lama, the second highest leader in Tibetan Buddhism. Today, I ask that the Senate join their cause. Free the Panchen Lama. I offer my deepest respect and prayers to them and to the countless brave men and women who have lost their lives in the struggle to bring freedom and democracy to Tibet. It is my hope that the United States will be ``on the right side of history'' by pressing hard for negotiations and a peaceful solution to the Tibetan situation, in accordance with U.N. resolutions. Finally, I would like to commend the Tibetan people, who under the leadership of the Dalai Lama, have remained steadfast in their commitment to non-violence. While in other parts of the world individuals seeking freedom have employed any means available, including violence and terrorism, the Tibetans have not altered from the path of nonviolence, even while their homeland, their families, their religion, and their culture are decimated. To turn away from the Tibetan people in their hour of need, would send a message to the world that the international community does not care about what is just. I urge Tibetans to stay the course of nonviolence.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Domestic Violence Screening and Services Act of 2002, an act to improve the response of health care systems to domestic violence, and to train health care providers and federally qualified health centers regarding screening, identification, and treatment for families experiencing domestic violence. Nearly one third of American women, 31 percent, report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, and about 1200 women are murdered every year by their intimate partner, nearly 3 each day. 37 percent of all women who sought care in hospital emergency rooms for violence related injuries were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. In addition to injuries sustained during violent episodes, physical and psychological abuse are linked to numerous adverse health effects including arthritis, chronic neck or back pain, migraine and other frequent headaches, problems with vision, and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. Each year, at least 6 percent of all pregnant women, about 240,000 pregnant women in this country, are battered by the men in their lives. This battering leads to complications in pregnancy, including low weight gain, anemia, infections, and first and second trimester bleeding. Pregnant women are more likely to die of homicide than to die of any other cause. Currently, about 10 percent of primary care physicians routinely screen for intimate partner abuse during new patient visits and 9 percent routinely screen during periodic checkups. Recent clinical studies have shown the effectiveness of a 2-minute screening for early detection of abuse of pregnant women. Additional longitudinal studies have tested a 10-minute intervention that was highly effective in increasing the safety of pregnant abused women. 70 to 81 percent of patients studied reported that they would like their health care providers to ask them privately about intimate partner violence. Medical services for abused women cost an estimated $857,300,000 every year. It is time for us to also authorize resources to promote the effort to make screening for domestic violence routine in health care settings. This bill would establish domestic violence prevention grants in the amount of $5 million dollars per year to improve screening and treatment for domestic violence in federally qualified health centers. Grants could be used for the implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of policies and procedures to guide health care professionals and staff to respond to domestic violence. Grants could also be used to provide training and follow-up technical assistance to health professionals and staff to screen for domestic violence, and then to appropriately assess, treat, and refer patients who are victims of domestic violence to domestic violence service providers. In addition, grants could be used for the development of onsite access to services to address, the safety, medical, and mental health needs of patients either by increasing the capacity of existing health professionals and staff to address these issues or by contracting with or hiring domestic violence advocates to provide the services. This bill would also authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants in the amount of $5 million per year to strengthen the response of State and local health care systems to domestic violence by building the capacity of health personnel to identify, address, and prevent domestic violence. Up to 10 grants would be utilized to design and implement comprehensive statewide strategies in clinical and public healthcare settings and to promote education and awareness about domestic violence at a statewide level. Up to 10 additional grants would be used to design and implement comprehensive local strategies to improve the response of the health care system in hospitals, clinics, managed care settings, emergency medical services, and other health care settings. Finally, this bill would also ensure that health care professionals working in the National Health Service Corps receiving training on how to screen, assess, treat and refer patients who are victims of domestic violence. Our health care system represents a potentially life saving point of intervention for those experiencing domestic violence. We need to support these efforts to improve the ability of our health care system to be a safe place for women to turn to when most in need. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Domestic Violence Screening and Services Act of 2002, an act to improve the response of health care systems to domestic violence, and to train health care providers and federally qualified health centers regarding screening, identification, and treatment for families experiencing domestic violence. Nearly one third of American women, 31 percent, report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, and about 1200 women are murdered every year by their intimate partner, nearly 3 each day. 37 percent of all women who sought care in hospital emergency rooms for violence related injuries were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. In addition to injuries sustained during violent episodes, physical and psychological abuse are linked to numerous adverse health effects including arthritis, chronic neck or back pain, migraine and other frequent headaches, problems with vision, and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. Each year, at least 6 percent of all pregnant women, about 240,000 pregnant women in this country, are battered by the men in their lives. This battering leads to complications in pregnancy, including low weight gain, anemia, infections, and first and second trimester bleeding. Pregnant women are more likely to die of homicide than to die of any other cause. Currently, about 10 percent of primary care physicians routinely screen for intimate partner abuse during new patient visits and 9 percent routinely screen during periodic checkups. Recent clinical studies have shown the effectiveness of a 2-minute screening for early detection of abuse of pregnant women. Additional longitudinal studies have tested a 10-minute intervention that was highly effective in increasing the safety of pregnant abused women. 70 to 81 percent of patients studied reported that they would like their health care providers to ask them privately about intimate partner violence. Medical services for abused women cost an estimated $857,300,000 every year. It is time for us to also authorize resources to promote the effort to make screening for domestic violence routine in health care settings. This bill would establish domestic violence prevention grants in the amount of $5 million dollars per year to improve screening and treatment for domestic violence in federally qualified health centers. Grants could be used for the implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of policies and procedures to guide health care professionals and staff to respond to domestic violence. Grants could also be used to provide training and follow-up technical assistance to health professionals and staff to screen for domestic violence, and then to appropriately assess, treat, and refer patients who are victims of domestic violence to domestic violence service providers. In addition, grants could be used for the development of onsite access to services to address, the safety, medical, and mental health needs of patients either by increasing the capacity of existing health professionals and staff to address these issues or by contracting with or hiring domestic violence advocates to provide the services. This bill would also authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants in the amount of $5 million per year to strengthen the response of State and local health care systems to domestic violence by building the capacity of health personnel to identify, address, and prevent domestic violence. Up to 10 grants would be utilized to design and implement comprehensive statewide strategies in clinical and public healthcare settings and to promote education and awareness about domestic violence at a statewide level. Up to 10 additional grants would be used to design and implement comprehensive local strategies to improve the response of the health care system in hospitals, clinics, managed care settings, emergency medical services, and other health care settings. Finally, this bill would also ensure that health care professionals working in the National Health Service Corps receiving training on how to screen, assess, treat and refer patients who are victims of domestic violence. Our health care system represents a potentially life saving point of intervention for those experiencing domestic violence. We need to support these efforts to improve the ability of our health care system to be a safe place for women to turn to when most in need. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.