Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. It is really a superb article.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in this past Sunday's New York Times magazine, ``When Naptime Is Over, The placid public mood is an illusion. Real Issues rumble beneath the calm and could soon send a wake-up call,'' by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. And there is not an opportunity to offer amendments? I ask the majority party as to when I might have an opportunity to offer an amendment to fast track? I will do it later--I see my colleagues on the floor--but will there be an opportunity?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me just conclude by thanking all the conferees on the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, especially for all the women and men in the Parkinson's community who worked so hard to make sure that we have some clear directive to NIH about making sure that there will now be some real investment of resources in research to find the cure to Parkinson's disease. It has been one of the greatest lobbying efforts I have ever seen here. It was citizen lobbyists, people who struggle with this disease, who once upon a time were kind of embarrassed to be public and be out and about. People have been there. All of you in the Parkinson's community, you have set a really good model for the Nation. Because if we had more people like you coming to Washington, DC, it would be a better Congress. We need to get a lot more ordinary citizens coming to Washington or meeting with us back in our States. I just hope more and more people will be like that. It was a really fine victory. Mr. President, I presume then there will not be an opportunity--my colleagues are on the floor as well--we are not going back to fast track, is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to take this time Sunday afternoon as we approach the end of this session to talk about some unfinished business for the Congress and I think for the Nation. I really was moved, and I do not usually use that word, by the eloquence of my colleague, Senator Durbin, from Illinois. As I came in, I heard Senator Durbin talk about children and talk about early years and talk about early childhood development and talk about whether or not we as a nation are going to make a commitment to affordable child care. I want to talk about a really difficult issue for the Senate, for the Congress, and I think for the White House, and when we come back for me this will be one of the first items of business. I want us to have discussion and I would like to see whether or not we would be willing to perhaps take some important action. I am talking about the bill that was passed which was called welfare reform. Mr. President, some of what was in that bill represented over $50 billion of cuts in the name of deficit reduction in the major food nutrition program in the country, food stamps--20 percent cut for families, most of them working families, most of the recipients children. And the other part was the cuts in benefits to legal immigrants, some of which has been corrected, some of which has not. What worries me--and I have traveled the country and spent quite a bit of time in low-income communities. I haven't just focused on welfare, but I have been to the delta in Mississippi with Congressman Bennie Thompson; I have been to eastern Kentucky, to Letcher County, Whitesburg, KY; I have been to Chicago in housing projects, and, of course, I have been in Minnesota, both urban and rural, and I have been to L.A., East L.A., and Watts. One of the things that worries me is that I see in many articles and too much of the media coverage and certainly too much of what I hear from both Democrats and Republicans in Washington that welfare reform has been a success as defined by reduction of caseload. Any Democrat, any Republican, or any fool can knock people off the welfare rolls. That has nothing to do with reform. The only way reform can be defined is not by reduction of caseload but by reduction of poverty. Are these families, in the main headed by women and children, better off? I heard my colleague from Illinois talk about child care, and if my colleague was here I would tell him about some just very emotional experiences that I have had, meeting with some of the women who have now been told they are to work, and they work. But their concern is about what happens to their children. You know, just because they are poor, just because they are welfare mothers, doesn't make them, or doesn't make their children, any less worthy, any less important. In Los Angeles, for example, in L.A., one city, they have a waiting list of 30,000 families for affordable child care. That is before the welfare bill. The question I ask colleagues is, where are these children? Fine, the mothers are now working. Do we know where the children are? Where are they? Who is taking care of them? Is it developmental child care? Is it just custodial? Or are they even in harm's way? We don't know. But we should know. We passed the legislation. I met a woman, and this story of this one mother unfortunately is the story of other mothers. She said to me, ``I want to work.'' By the way, almost all the people I meet want to work. That's a big thing to people in our country, to be able to work and make a decent wage and support your family. And also to be able to give your children the care you know they need and deserve. But I am meeting some of these mothers. We told them we would sort of delegate this to the States and they would work. Here is what they say to me, what this one mother in L.A. said. I then visited actually where she lived, public housing in east L.A. She said to me: ``I want to work but I am so frightened because my first grader goes home alone every day. I worry about what happens to her from the time she leaves school to when she gets back to the apartment''--public housing. ``There are gangs, there is violence. I tell her to go into the apartment, lock the door, and don't take any phone calls.'' I would like to ask Senators, how many of you would like for your first graders, whether they are your children or your grandchildren, to go home alone? Actually, to go home to wherever you live, much less in the neighborhoods and communities that are so dangerous. In the debate that we had on welfare reform, did anybody ever talk about these children? I never heard a word. We talk a lot about early childhood development, which is very important. We talk a lot about after-school programs for teenagers, which is critically important. But what about these first and second graders? I think there are too many children in our country right now, because of what is happening around the country, who are in danger. And I think it is our responsibility to know what is going on. Speeches do not suffice. When I was in Letcher County, KY, I spent quite a bit of time with Carroll Smith, who is the county executive, Republican--county Judge, which is like the county executive; just a great, great guy. It was interesting, though. He and others were saying to me, did anyone ever mention the word ``rural'' when you all passed that bill? Because in the absence of access to capital and our seeing economic development in our community, we don't know where the jobs are going to be. The Wall Street Journal had--I haven't even had a chance to read the article from cover to cover--a very long, extensive piece about Delta, MS, where lots of people can't find jobs, or have to drive 60, 70 miles. Again, you have two things going on here. No. 1, there are not the jobs where people live in rural America. No. 2, the jobs that quite often these women are getting maybe pay $6 an hour. They are going to be worse off than they were before, because there will not be health care after a while, and they don't know what to do by way of child care. It seems to me that one of the things that we need to do is at least call on the States to provide us with an evaluation, maybe every 6 months or every year, on how families are doing toward attaining the goal of economic self-sufficiency. Because if we don't do that, 4 years from now all these families are off all assistance. Don't you think, before we have some tragedy, we ought to at least know what is going on? I am going to have an amendment, a piece of legislation which I will bring to the floor of the Senate and we will have that vote. Mr. President, I go to the communities. It has been very moving. I hope to get a chance to write a long piece about what I have learned from people. But I don't find that the issues that people in low-income communities are talking about are really different than issues that other working families are talking about. The first question is: Where are the jobs that pay a decent wage? This is still one of the most important challenges for most families in our country. It is an important challenge in poor communities: Where are the jobs? And we are going to have to have an urban jobs program if we are serious about reducing poverty and making sure that families have a chance. Also, we are going to have to do a lot better by way of making sure that, if people work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they are not poor. If people play by the rules of the game and they work hard, they ought not to be poor. That is where child care fits in. That is where health care fits in. And not just for low-income families, but for the vast majority of families in our country. I heard my colleague from Illinois speak. I was so pleased to hear what he said. But I would like to challenge both Republicans and Democrats, because I think that what is going on here is we have a debate that, in a way, may take us nowhere, or at least certainly not connect very well with a lot of people in our country. On the one hand my friend Jeff Faux has written a very interesting piece where he argues this. I will take a piece of what Jeff says. On the one hand, for example, we have the majority party, the Republican Party, which argues--at the risk of getting the Chair angry at me-- which argues, when it comes to some of these most pressing issues, for example affordable child care, there is nothing the Government can or should do. My argument is that is a great philosophy if you own your own large corporation and you are wealthy, but it doesn't work for most of the people in the country. On the other hand, you have the Democratic Party that says we are all for the children, we are all for education, we are all for job training. But, do you know what? Politically there is not anything we can do either. We just have to cut taxes because politically that is the only way we can make it. In which case neither party has a whole lot to say to the very families we are talking about, at least if you get beyond speeches and conferences. We have had enough speeches. We have had enough conferences. The question is whether or not we are going to go beyond the speeches and the conferences and dig into our pockets and make the kind of investment that we need to make as a nation. I think the question for all of us is how can we renew our national vow of equal opportunity for every child in America? That is the goodness of our country. That ought to be the central goal of public policy here in the Congress. I make a commitment, as a Senator from Minnesota, to bring that kind of legislation out on the floor, working with others, with the financing, with the investment, so this isn't empty rhetoric. We ought not to separate the budgets we introduce from the words that we speak. Finally, let me make one other point. My training is as a political scientist--I was a college teacher before I became a U.S. Senator--not as a political economist, although I am interested in political economy. There is something very interesting and very important going on in our country, which is now we have reports about record low levels of unemployment. The GDP looking great. Productivity is up. But real wages of most families are down. The economy of American families is not measured by GDP, it is not measured by all these official statistics. It is measured by real family income. It is measured by whether or not people can purchase the things that make life richer in possibilities. It is measured by opportunities. It is measured by security or insecurity. And it is measured by our expectations for our children and our grandchildren. And by that criterion, a whole lot of families could be doing better and we could be doing better as a nation. One of the issues that I think is a living-room issue in America, a kitchen-table issue, that we are going to have to have the courage to take on, is health care. We can have patient protection--I am all for that. We can have provider protection--I am all for that. We can try to control some of these large insurance companies that own and control most of the managed care plans--I am all for that. But the fact of the matter is, we have now moved from 40 to 44 million people or thereabouts without any health insurance since we first started talking about this 3 years ago; more than twice that number of underinsured, and the vast majority of people in the country, not just low-income-- either people are not old enough for Medicare, and Medicare doesn't cover prescription drug costs, it doesn't cover catastrophic expenses, or people aren't poor enough for medical assistance and they are not lucky enough to be able to work for an employer who provides them with good health care coverage. We ought to have humane, dignified, affordable health care for every man, woman, and child in our Nation. For me, next session, that will be my priority--with the financing, clear with people in the country how you pay for it. But I am telling you, large insurance companies don't like it. And there are a whole bunch of other powerful interests that don't like it. But the majority of people in this country know that this system is in big-time crisis. It is time we get back to this issue as a Congress. I really do think that, as we think about what we have done and what we have not done--I will just talk a little bit about what we haven't done in the few minutes I have left. I think these standard of living issues are the critical issues. I think, unfortunately, Jeff Faux is right, neither party is telling the story that gives people any confidence that much is going to happen that is good for them. And I think we could do better, all of us. And in addition, the one other issue that we did not get the job done on, and it is critically important, is campaign finance reform. When I go into cafes in Minnesota, this is one thing I don't gloat about. I am not even pleased to say it, but it is true. Because it is aimed at me. It is aimed at all of us. The vast majority of people I talk to in cafes believe both parties now--they just sort of view the Government as being controlled by wealthy financial interests. They just feel locked out. They feel like it is for big players and heavy hitters. And, you know what, all of us have to raise money. That's what we have to do. That's not the point. I did. We all do. That's the system right now. We should change this. We didn't, not this time. We come back to it next year. But this is a real important issue and it is not that people don't care about it. They care about it deeply and desperately. And I think they want to believe in the political process. They want to believe in Government. But we are going to continue to see a tremendous amount of cynicism and apathy and disengagement and disillusionment unless we get as much of this money out of politics as possible. We know what the criterion is. We have talked about it enough. It is time to really move forward. It can't just be like a piece of legislation where we maybe do one thing but then all the money shifts somewhere else. Then people will just be even more disillusioned. I think this is a core issue. There are a lot of good things all of us could do here. A lot of good things get trumped by big money in politics. Mr. President, I will conclude--how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voting Rights of Homeless Citizens Act of 1997. I am proud to stand alongside the distinguished House sponsor of this bill, Representative John Lewis. Mr. President, over the course of the last century, Congress has systematically removed the major obstacles that once prevented many of our citizens from voting. Not too long ago, only land-owning white men had the privilege of participating in our democracy. Women and minorities were prohibited from casting the ballot. More recently, people had to pay a poll tax or take a test in order to qualify to vote. Before the civil rights movement, there were areas in the southern part of this country where the vast majority of the population was black, but there wasn't a single registered black voter. In 1964, three young men gave their lives while working to register people to vote in rural Mississippi. Many people over the course of our history have sacrificed their lives in order to expand voting rights for all Americans. In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson proposed that we ``eliminate every remaining obstacle to the right and opportunity to vote.'' Eight months later, this Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it possible for millions of Americans to participate in the political process for the first time. Our Nation has made even more progress since then. The motor voter law made voter registration more accessible to working people. But our historic strides have not taken us far enough. The time is long overdue to ensure that every American has the opportunity to exercise this fundamental right. It is reprehensible that there are still American adults who are unable to partake of the most important right of citizenry. The purpose of this legislation is to give the power to vote to homeless citizens of this country. The bill would remove the legal and administrative barriers that inhibit them from exercising this right. No one should be excluded from registering to vote simply because they do not have an address. But in many States, the homeless are left out and left behind. This is wrong. This is against the grain of this great nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in opening the political process to every American--even those without a home. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring and supporting passage of the Voting Rights of Homeless Citizens Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voting Rights of Homeless Citizens Act of 1997. I am proud to stand alongside the distinguished House sponsor of this bill, Representative John Lewis. Mr. President, over the course of the last century, Congress has systematically removed the major obstacles that once prevented many of our citizens from voting. Not too long ago, only land-owning white men had the privilege of participating in our democracy. Women and minorities were prohibited from casting the ballot. More recently, people had to pay a poll tax or take a test in order to qualify to vote. Before the civil rights movement, there were areas in the southern part of this country where the vast majority of the population was black, but there wasn't a single registered black voter. In 1964, three young men gave their lives while working to register people to vote in rural Mississippi. Many people over the course of our history have sacrificed their lives in order to expand voting rights for all Americans. In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson proposed that we ``eliminate every remaining obstacle to the right and opportunity to vote.'' Eight months later, this Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it possible for millions of Americans to participate in the political process for the first time. Our Nation has made even more progress since then. The motor voter law made voter registration more accessible to working people. But our historic strides have not taken us far enough. The time is long overdue to ensure that every American has the opportunity to exercise this fundamental right. It is reprehensible that there are still American adults who are unable to partake of the most important right of citizenry. The purpose of this legislation is to give the power to vote to homeless citizens of this country. The bill would remove the legal and administrative barriers that inhibit them from exercising this right. No one should be excluded from registering to vote simply because they do not have an address. But in many States, the homeless are left out and left behind. This is wrong. This is against the grain of this great nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in opening the political process to every American--even those without a home. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring and supporting passage of the Voting Rights of Homeless Citizens Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just say in the Chamber and I will check with the leader, I do have an amendment on human rights that I would like to offer. We may or may not get to fast track, but this would be an opportunity I think to have the discussion.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Before I start, I also wanted to find out how long we will be in morning business and whether or not there will be opportunities to introduce amendments to the fast-track bill? In other words, I understand the amendment will be laid aside, but I want to know whether there are opportunities to introduce the amendments to fast track.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask what the parliamentary situation is?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill that will help atomic veterans--veterans who were exposed to ionizing radiation while serving on active duty. Atomic veterans are not only America's most neglected veterans, but they have been deceived and treated shabbily for more than 50 years by the Government they served so selflessly and unquestioningly. Mr. President, it is hardly accidental that I chose to entitle this bill the ``Justice for Atomic Veterans Act of 1997.'' Atomic veterans have been seeking justice almost since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The U.S. Government has a long overdue debt to them and I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that this debt is paid at long last. With the full cooperation of my distinguished colleagues Senators Bond and Mikulski, the Senate in July passed an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill which serves as the basis for this bill. That amendment, which was in the legislation that the President signed recently, provided for CBO to estimate the cost of legislation that would add 10 radiogenic diseases to the list of presumptively service- connected diseases for which atomic veterans may be compensated by the VA. The amendment also requires the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to hold hearings on expanding the list of radiogenic diseases that are presumptively service-connected within 60 days of enactment. To facilitate consideration by the Veterans' Affairs Committee and to secure the support of my colleagues, I'm introducing this bill. Mr. President, before I get into the substance of my bill, I want to discuss why I decided to introduce it. First and foremost, I must stress that much of what I know about atomic veterans I've learned from members and families of the Forgotten 216th. The Forgotten 216th refers to the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S. Army, which participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper--a series of eight atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Nevada desert in 1952. About half of the members of the 216th were Minnesotans. Almost 4 years ago, they contacted me after then-Secretary of Energy O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had conducted radiation experiments on its own citizens. I will never forget my first meeting with members of the Forgotten 216th. It was quite an emotional experience for them as well as for me. For the first time in public, they revealed what went on during the Nevada tests they participated in over 40 years ago, as well as the tragedies and trauma they, their families, and former buddies had experienced since then. Since that first dramatic meeting, I've met often with the brave and patriotic members of the Forgotten 216th and their families. They have been and are my mentors. I'm very proud of these extraordinary Minnesotans who have fought hard against great odds for just treatment for atomic veterans and their families. Because I believe that their experiences and problems typify that of atomic veterans nationwide, I want to tell my colleagues more about the Forgotten 216th. After you hear their story, I'm confident you'll agree with me that it is imperative that all of us work to ensure the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them are never forgotten again. Mr. President, when they took part in Operation Tumbler Snapper 45 years ago, they believed their Government's assurances that it would keep them out of harm's way, but they have come to believe they were used a guina pigs without concern for their safety. Many members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near ground zero immediately after a nuclear blast, exposing them to so much radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given minimal or no protection, sometimes even lacking film badges to measure radiation exposure and provided with no information on the perils they faced. Furthermore, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear tests, sometimes denied access to their own service medical records, and provided no medical followup to ensure they'd suffered no ill effects as a result of their exposure to radiation. Tragically, many members of the 216th have already died, often of cancer. Moreover, many of their children and even grandchildren have been born with serious and rare disorders, even after they'd had healthy children prior to exposure to radiation. Their claims for VA compensation were denied, often because they were alleged to have been exposed to radiation doses too low to cause disabling illnesses. Since they'd inhaled radioactive dust near Ground Zero shortly after nuclear blasts, they were and are justifiably skeptical about claims that their exposures were insufficient to cause radiogenic diseases. Can anyone really be surprised that these men now refer to themselves as the forgotten 216th? Mr. President, I would not like to turn to the substance of my bill. I want to stress at the outset that this legislation is directly responsive to one of the recommendations of the Final Report of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments issued in October 1995. The Report urged the Congress to address five concerns of atomic veterans and their families ``promptly.'' My bill directly addresses two of these concerns, which the report described as follows: The listing of diseases for which relief is automatically provided--the presumptive diseases provided for in the 1988 law--is incomplete and inadequate. The standard of proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet and, given the questionable condition of the exposure records retained by the government, inappropriate. The VA maintains two lists of radiogenic diseases, a presumptive list established under Public Law 101-321 as amended by Public Law 102-578 and now consisting of 15 radiogenic diseases, and a nonpresumptive list established under Public Law 98-542 which includes 10 diseases not on the presumptive list. My bill would add these 10 diseases to the presumptive list, making all diseases currently recognized by the VA as radiogenic presumptively service-connected. The radiogenic diseases that would be added to the presumptive list are: lung cancer; bone cancer; skin cancer; colon cancer; posterior subcapsular cataracts; nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease; ovarian cancer; parathyroid adenoma; tumors of the brain and central nervous system; and rectal cancer. Why the need for these changes? To being with veterans must jump through hoops to demonstrate they are eligible for compensation for nonpresumptive diseases and, after they have done so the chances that the VA will approve their claims are minimal. Mr. President, to illustrate what I mean, permit me to cite some VA statistics. As of April 1, 1996, out of the hundreds of thousands of atomic veterans there are, there have been a total of 18,515 radiation claim cases, with service-connection granted in 1,886 cases. According to VA statistics current as of December 1, 1995, only 463 involve the granting of presumptive service-connection. If we were to exclude the 463 veterans who were granted presumptive service-connection, atomic veterans had an incredibly low claims approval rate of less than 8 percent. It needs to be stressed, moreover, that of this low percentage, an indeterminate number may have had their claims granted for diseases unrelated to radiation exposure. Why so few claims approvals? One key reason is that VA regulations are overly stringent for service-connection for nonpresumptive radiogenic diseases. Dose requirements pose a particularly difficult, if not insuperable, hurdle. While it is almost impossible to come up with accurate dose reconstructions because decades have elapsed since the nuclear detonations and adequate records don't exist, veterans are frequently denied compensation because their radiation exposure levels are deemed to be too low. In this connection, let me cite the findings of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: ``the Government did not create or maintain adequate records regarding the exposure of all participants in [nuclear weapons tests and] the identity and test locales of all participants.'' This finding obviously calls into question the capability of the Government to come up with accurate dose reconstructions on which approval of claims for VA compensation for atomic veterans frequently depend. Mr. President, is there any reason that atomic veterans should be penalized for the U.S. Government's failure to maintain records that are fundamental in determining the merit of their VA claims? Of course, their isn't. If the Government can not even be counted on to come up with the ``identity and test locales of all participants,'' what can it be counted on to do? Certainly not on giving atomic veterans a fair shake. Certainly not anything resembling the ``benefit of the doubt'' that the VA is required to accord them. For these and other reasons it is vital that the Senate pass legislation to ensure that these patriotic and long-suffering veterans receive the justice that has been denied them for so many years. Justice is what my bill is all about. It will ensure that atomic veterans no longer have to depend on a benefit of the doubt they rarely receive. How can they receive the benefit of the doubt when the Government records on which the whole edifice of VA claims adjudication rests are flawed or nonexistent? When dose reconstruction on which their claims depend is unreliable? When the health effects of exposure to purportedly low-level radiation are unknown or still the subject of scientific controversy 52 years after the first nuclear blast at Alamogordo, NM? By now it should be obvious to all of my colleagues that the current system of adjudicating atomic veterans' claims makes little sense and is discriminatory. Like many of you I believe that `if it ain't broke don't fix it.'' Well this system is obviously broke and we need to fix it now. Both the fairest and quickest way of doing so is by adding the 10 radiogenic diseases now only on the nonpresumptive list to the presumptive list as my bill proposes. Mr. President, since January 1994, I have had many meetings with the men of the Forgotten 216th and atomic veterans from around the country. I want to assure you that they remain patriotic Americans who are proud to have served this country. I have no doubt whatever they would gladly answer the call of duty again if their country was to call on them. A half century of neglect by the Government that put them in harm's way without even telling them so, has in no way dimmed their love of country. These are remarkable Americans and at long last they need to be treated like the remarkable Americans they are. Even though they have waited for over 50 years, they still retain the hope that they will receive the compensation and recognition they deserve. The fight of atomic veterans for justice has been long, hard, and frustrating, but these patriotic, dedicated, and deserving veterans have persevered. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join that struggle by supporting the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act. Let me assure each of you it's a struggle worth waging and a struggle we can win. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on November 7, 1997, the Minnesota State University Student Association [MSUSA] will celebrate its 30th Anniversary of representing Minnesota State University students. MSUSA is an advocate organization which was formed in 1967 as an informal coalition of student leaders. Today, it represents more than 60,000 students at Minnesota's state universities in Bemidji, Mankato, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Moorhead, St. Cloud, Marshall, and Winona. MSUSA is an independent, nonprofit corporation funded and operated by students. In order to fulfill its main objectives--affordable, quality and accessible State university education--students have taken an activist approach to establish affordable tuition and child care facilities, increase student work study wages, simplify transfer between institutions, improve cultural diversity, and advocate fair State and Federal financial aid programs including those in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. In assisting State university students achieve their goals and voice their concerns, MSUSA provides liaisons to the Governor's office, the legislature, the board of trustees of MnSCU, the Minnesota Higher Education Services Council, the inter faculty organization, Congress, the administration, and the U.S. Department of Education. One of MSUSA's most outstanding activities is the Penny Fellowship Program, which encourages students to take a leadership role in serving their communities by performing internships in public and community service. Other noteworthy programs include the MSUSA newspaper, the Monitor, which has the largest circulation of any State system student organization, and the MSUSA Cultural Diversity Project, which fosters understanding and cooperation of students from all cultural backgrounds. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to recognize and congratulate the current officers of MSUSA, who are: Francis Klinkner, State chair from Mankato State University; Garret Melby Aanerud, vice chair from Moorhead State University; and Frank X. Viggiano, executive director. Their hard work on behalf of Minnesota students has led them to many successes, and I'm sure their continuing effort will mean a better- educated and a more productive Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill that will help atomic veterans--veterans who were exposed to ionizing radiation while serving on active duty. Atomic veterans are not only America's most neglected veterans, but they have been deceived and treated shabbily for more than 50 years by the Government they served so selflessly and unquestioningly. Mr. President, it is hardly accidental that I chose to entitle this bill the ``Justice for Atomic Veterans Act of 1997.'' Atomic veterans have been seeking justice almost since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The U.S. Government has a long overdue debt to them and I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that this debt is paid at long last. With the full cooperation of my distinguished colleagues Senators Bond and Mikulski, the Senate in July passed an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill which serves as the basis for this bill. That amendment, which was in the legislation that the President signed recently, provided for CBO to estimate the cost of legislation that would add 10 radiogenic diseases to the list of presumptively service- connected diseases for which atomic veterans may be compensated by the VA. The amendment also requires the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to hold hearings on expanding the list of radiogenic diseases that are presumptively service-connected within 60 days of enactment. To facilitate consideration by the Veterans' Affairs Committee and to secure the support of my colleagues, I'm introducing this bill. Mr. President, before I get into the substance of my bill, I want to discuss why I decided to introduce it. First and foremost, I must stress that much of what I know about atomic veterans I've learned from members and families of the Forgotten 216th. The Forgotten 216th refers to the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S. Army, which participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper--a series of eight atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Nevada desert in 1952. About half of the members of the 216th were Minnesotans. Almost 4 years ago, they contacted me after then-Secretary of Energy O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had conducted radiation experiments on its own citizens. I will never forget my first meeting with members of the Forgotten 216th. It was quite an emotional experience for them as well as for me. For the first time in public, they revealed what went on during the Nevada tests they participated in over 40 years ago, as well as the tragedies and trauma they, their families, and former buddies had experienced since then. Since that first dramatic meeting, I've met often with the brave and patriotic members of the Forgotten 216th and their families. They have been and are my mentors. I'm very proud of these extraordinary Minnesotans who have fought hard against great odds for just treatment for atomic veterans and their families. Because I believe that their experiences and problems typify that of atomic veterans nationwide, I want to tell my colleagues more about the Forgotten 216th. After you hear their story, I'm confident you'll agree with me that it is imperative that all of us work to ensure the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them are never forgotten again. Mr. President, when they took part in Operation Tumbler Snapper 45 years ago, they believed their Government's assurances that it would keep them out of harm's way, but they have come to believe they were used a guina pigs without concern for their safety. Many members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near ground zero immediately after a nuclear blast, exposing them to so much radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given minimal or no protection, sometimes even lacking film badges to measure radiation exposure and provided with no information on the perils they faced. Furthermore, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in nuclear tests, sometimes denied access to their own service medical records, and provided no medical followup to ensure they'd suffered no ill effects as a result of their exposure to radiation. Tragically, many members of the 216th have already died, often of cancer. Moreover, many of their children and even grandchildren have been born with serious and rare disorders, even after they'd had healthy children prior to exposure to radiation. Their claims for VA compensation were denied, often because they were alleged to have been exposed to radiation doses too low to cause disabling illnesses. Since they'd inhaled radioactive dust near Ground Zero shortly after nuclear blasts, they were and are justifiably skeptical about claims that their exposures were insufficient to cause radiogenic diseases. Can anyone really be surprised that these men now refer to themselves as the forgotten 216th? Mr. President, I would not like to turn to the substance of my bill. I want to stress at the outset that this legislation is directly responsive to one of the recommendations of the Final Report of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments issued in October 1995. The Report urged the Congress to address five concerns of atomic veterans and their families ``promptly.'' My bill directly addresses two of these concerns, which the report described as follows: The listing of diseases for which relief is automatically provided--the presumptive diseases provided for in the 1988 law--is incomplete and inadequate. The standard of proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet and, given the questionable condition of the exposure records retained by the government, inappropriate. The VA maintains two lists of radiogenic diseases, a presumptive list established under Public Law 101-321 as amended by Public Law 102-578 and now consisting of 15 radiogenic diseases, and a nonpresumptive list established under Public Law 98-542 which includes 10 diseases not on the presumptive list. My bill would add these 10 diseases to the presumptive list, making all diseases currently recognized by the VA as radiogenic presumptively service-connected. The radiogenic diseases that would be added to the presumptive list are: lung cancer; bone cancer; skin cancer; colon cancer; posterior subcapsular cataracts; nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease; ovarian cancer; parathyroid adenoma; tumors of the brain and central nervous system; and rectal cancer. Why the need for these changes? To being with veterans must jump through hoops to demonstrate they are eligible for compensation for nonpresumptive diseases and, after they have done so the chances that the VA will approve their claims are minimal. Mr. President, to illustrate what I mean, permit me to cite some VA statistics. As of April 1, 1996, out of the hundreds of thousands of atomic veterans there are, there have been a total of 18,515 radiation claim cases, with service-connection granted in 1,886 cases. According to VA statistics current as of December 1, 1995, only 463 involve the granting of presumptive service-connection. If we were to exclude the 463 veterans who were granted presumptive service-connection, atomic veterans had an incredibly low claims approval rate of less than 8 percent. It needs to be stressed, moreover, that of this low percentage, an indeterminate number may have had their claims granted for diseases unrelated to radiation exposure. Why so few claims approvals? One key reason is that VA regulations are overly stringent for service-connection for nonpresumptive radiogenic diseases. Dose requirements pose a particularly difficult, if not insuperable, hurdle. While it is almost impossible to come up with accurate dose reconstructions because decades have elapsed since the nuclear detonations and adequate records don't exist, veterans are frequently denied compensation because their radiation exposure levels are deemed to be too low. In this connection, let me cite the findings of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: ``the Government did not create or maintain adequate records regarding the exposure of all participants in [nuclear weapons tests and] the identity and test locales of all participants.'' This finding obviously calls into question the capability of the Government to come up with accurate dose reconstructions on which approval of claims for VA compensation for atomic veterans frequently depend. Mr. President, is there any reason that atomic veterans should be penalized for the U.S. Government's failure to maintain records that are fundamental in determining the merit of their VA claims? Of course, their isn't. If the Government can not even be counted on to come up with the ``identity and test locales of all participants,'' what can it be counted on to do? Certainly not on giving atomic veterans a fair shake. Certainly not anything resembling the ``benefit of the doubt'' that the VA is required to accord them. For these and other reasons it is vital that the Senate pass legislation to ensure that these patriotic and long-suffering veterans receive the justice that has been denied them for so many years. Justice is what my bill is all about. It will ensure that atomic veterans no longer have to depend on a benefit of the doubt they rarely receive. How can they receive the benefit of the doubt when the Government records on which the whole edifice of VA claims adjudication rests are flawed or nonexistent? When dose reconstruction on which their claims depend is unreliable? When the health effects of exposure to purportedly low-level radiation are unknown or still the subject of scientific controversy 52 years after the first nuclear blast at Alamogordo, NM? By now it should be obvious to all of my colleagues that the current system of adjudicating atomic veterans' claims makes little sense and is discriminatory. Like many of you I believe that `if it ain't broke don't fix it.'' Well this system is obviously broke and we need to fix it now. Both the fairest and quickest way of doing so is by adding the 10 radiogenic diseases now only on the nonpresumptive list to the presumptive list as my bill proposes. Mr. President, since January 1994, I have had many meetings with the men of the Forgotten 216th and atomic veterans from around the country. I want to assure you that they remain patriotic Americans who are proud to have served this country. I have no doubt whatever they would gladly answer the call of duty again if their country was to call on them. A half century of neglect by the Government that put them in harm's way without even telling them so, has in no way dimmed their love of country. These are remarkable Americans and at long last they need to be treated like the remarkable Americans they are. Even though they have waited for over 50 years, they still retain the hope that they will receive the compensation and recognition they deserve. The fight of atomic veterans for justice has been long, hard, and frustrating, but these patriotic, dedicated, and deserving veterans have persevered. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join that struggle by supporting the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act. Let me assure each of you it's a struggle worth waging and a struggle we can win. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since I have to interrupt my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for additional comments immediately after the vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his very important leadership in what is really a historic debate. Let me say at the beginning that I don't think this is a debate where two positions are either we have walls that we put on the border of our country or we are involved in an international economy. We are a part of an international economy. That's a false dichotomy. The question is, Are there any rules that go with this? Let me, first of all, start out with one of the major reasons I oppose the motion to proceed to S. 1269, this reciprocal trade agreement of 1997. I oppose it on the principle of democracy and representative accountability alone. I am opposed to fast track for that reason alone. It seems to me that we ought to understand that what we are talking about is a trade agreement which will crucially affect the quality or lack of quality of lives of the people that all of us represent, that will affect our domestic laws, everything in the world to do with wage levels, with consumer protection, with environmental protection, and it is difficult for me to understand how we could surrender our rights as Senators to an unlimited debate and the right to amendments to an important piece of legislation, indeed, to some legislation that will come before us, other agreements that will come before us up to the year 2001 that we have not even seen. Before we have even seen these agreements, we are supposed to agree to a procedure whereby we can't come to the floor and fight for the people we represent, we can't come to the floor and try to improve a trade agreement and make it work better for working families in our States. I would oppose this agreement just on this principle alone. S. 1269 would lock us into fast-track rules for debates and votes that we are going to be taking later on in the Congress. This will lock us in until the year 2001. That is the duration of the bill's provisions. So what we are deciding right now is whether or not we are going to establish highly restrictive rules which will govern our debate and votes later on implementing bills for agreements, the contents of which we do not know at this time. That is profoundly antidemocratic. On the principle of democracy, on the principle of being here to represent people in Minnesota, I would oppose this fast-track legislation just on this idea alone. Let's talk a little bit about what could happen between now and 2001. We could bring Chile into NAFTA. It may be good; it may not be good. We could broaden what we call NAFTA to include additional countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, turning NAFTA eventually into a free- trade area for the Americas, FTAA. We could look to the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, and we could negotiate these privileges as well, which could be NAFTA-like privileges, vis-a-vis countries in Asia. We might complete a worldwide multilateral agreement on investment which would be called the NIA. We could do all of these things. But the point is that under this provision, if we enter into these agreements up until the year 2001, all of this will come to the floor of the Senate with an expedited procedure. No amendments will be in order and there will be a limited number of hours. How can we as Senators represent consumers in our States, how can we represent working families in our States, how can we be out here fighting for decent jobs and decent wages, how can we, for that matter, represent people in other countries who want to see their standard of living lifted, not depressed, and at the same time agree to these kinds of agreements--we don't even know what will be in them--with this procedure that there will be limited debate and no amendments. This is a basic principle of democracy. I say to my colleagues we should not vote for this fast-track procedure because it denies us the ability to be out here representing the people in our States. That is what fast track is all about--an up-or-down vote on a giant bill which has a critical impact on numerous laws, these laws having a dramatic impact on the quality or lack of quality of life of the people we represent. That is one of the reasons I opposed NAFTA and one of the reasons I opposed the creation of the WTO as well. Let me point out that one administration official testified last year that negotiators had effectively concluded 200 trade agreements since President Clinton took office in 1993--nearly 200 trade agreements--and only two of those utilized fast-track procedures. So if trade agreements can be so readily reached without the benefit of fast track, then I question the need to impose these kinds of procedures which are inherently undemocratic. They shorten the debate. We cannot come out here with amendments. We cannot come out here to represent people in our States the way we should. Therefore, I would oppose this, and I hope my colleagues will as well. This whole idea of trade policy, which is so important, is supposed to be good for all of us, including consumers. Have the representatives of consumer groups been involved in this discussion? Certainly corporations and various economic sectors have helped to decide what our goals are, which is appropriate. But how about consumers? Consumers might be worried about downward harmonization of standards. Consumers might be worried about food safety standards and how this will affect their children. They might be worried about or oppose in principle deplorable child labor conditions in other countries. They might be worried about or oppose in principle deplorable violations of human rights of people in other countries. Consumers, the people we represent, may say, look, we would like to make sure that this is a part of a trade agreement. But the position the administration has taken in fast track is that these concerns are excluded as trade objectives. But they probably would be included as objectives if we had a more democratic process for negotiating and considering trade agreements. What I am trying to say is it becomes, I think, a Catch-22. If we as Senators are going to say, ipso facto, we give approval to any number of different trade agreements up through the year 2001, the provisions of which we do not even know about yet, then quite clearly what we are saying is we will not be able to come out here with amendments to protect consumers and working families, in which case I think we are going to get the same response from the administration, which is we will not make these agreements part of a trade agreement, basic protection on fair labor standards, on consumer protection, on environmental protection. I think that is the tragic mistake we will be making if we approve fast track. My second reason for opposing the motion to proceed is that I am not at all confident--in fact, unfortunately, I am quite certain--that as opposed to improving the standard of living and the quality of life for a majority of Americans, these trade agreements will have precisely the opposite effect. Let me also say that I am equally concerned about trade agreements that will lead to an improvement of the quality of life and living standards of people in other countries. I am all for trade agreements that lead to an improvement of the standard of living of people in our country and people in other countries. I am not in favor of a trade agreement that ends up not being global village but global pillage, where what you have instead is a systematic violation of the rights of children, of basic human rights, of basic fair labor standards and of basic environmental standards leading to profits for the few large multinational corporations and misery for way too many people throughout the world. Mr. President, we have had extensive debate on NAFTA, which was approved, and also extensive debate on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which ultimately led to the creation of the World Trade Organization, the WTO. I voted against implementing these trade agreements because I was concerned that these trade agreements would not take our country in the right direction. Now, as I think about it, I am afraid that the empirical evidence supports this view as well. Let me say again, I didn't oppose NAFTA or WTO because I am a protectionist. I am an internationalist. I don't have any interest in building walls on the borders of our country 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 people. 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 aware of the benefits of trade for the economy of Minnesota, and I am told about that constantly. We have an extremely internationally minded community of corporations, larger companies, small businesses, working people and farmers in our State. And we have done relatively well in this international economy. I am very proud of Minnesota's performance in this international economy. We have lost some jobs to trade, as have most States, but we have also benefited from trade. We benefit both from the exports and the imports: The exports create the jobs, as we all know, but the imports are not necessarily a bad thing. They provide the competition for consumers and they can push our own domestic companies to do better, to be more productive and to be more efficient. Open trade can contribute significantly to the expansion of wealth and opportunity, and it can reward innovation and productivity. It can deliver higher quality goods and services at better prices. So, what I am saying is not that we should not be involved in international trade, not that our country doesn't have a major role--we have a major role and play a major role in the international economy. But what I am saying is that the Congress should exercise its proper role in regulating trade, which is what trade agreements do, so that the rules of this international trade reflect American values. That is how America can lead in the world and it is how America should lead in the world. What American values are we talking about when it comes to trade? What are the American values when it comes to trade? We believe in open markets at home and abroad. But we also think there is a role for Government to play, especially when it comes to the protection of fundamental labor rights for working women and men, when it comes to the protection of children in the labor force, when it comes to environmental standards, when it comes to food and other consumer protections. These are important values in our country. When it comes to fundamental standards dealing with human rights and when it comes to democracy, these are important American values. The question is, how can we pursue these values when we are negotiating trade agreements? The Clinton administration believes that the commercial issues are primarily in the body of the trade agreements, which are enforceable with trade sanctions, and that the environmental and the labor rights issues and the human rights issues are secondary. A majority of the Senate appears to agree. I do not, and I don't believe most Americans agree with the President and the majority of the Senate on this question. I believe, and I think most Americans believe, that fundamental standard-of-living and quality-of-life issues are exactly what trade policy should be all about. That is why strong and enforceable labor rights, environmental and consumer protections belong directly in the agreements themselves. And if trade agreements do not help to uphold democracy and respect for human rights, then they are deficient. That is my position and, as we enter the 21st century, 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 don't negotiate trade agreements, even ones that do not live up to our own principles, then other countries will do so with each other in our absence; we will be left out. That is what we are told. What a contradiction. We must lead but we must do so by weakening our values, by leaving enforcement of labor rights out of agreements we negotiate, by leaving protection of the environment out of agreements we negotiate, by surrendering our principal linkage of human rights concerns to trade policy. Are we saying that when it comes down to it, that money is basically all that matters? Is that how America should lead the world? Not in my view. Our trade policy should seek to create fair trading arrangements which lift up the standards of 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. As one Minnesotan, Larry Weiss, wrote in our State's largest newspaper earlier this week, ``What we want is a global village, not global pillage.'' Protection of basic labor and environmental and food safety standards are just as important and just as valid as any other commercial or economic objective sought by the U.S. negotiators in trade agreements. We need to be encouraging good corporate citizenship, not the flight of capital and the dissemination of good-paying jobs from the United States.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is the role of national governments to establish the rules within which companies and countries trade. That is what trade agreements do. They set strict rules. If, for example, a country does not enforce respect for patents, trade sanctions can be invoked. Mr. President, 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 ironclad and will be strictly enforced. That is what companies do. You can be absolutely sure that U.S. companies would laugh in the face of negotiators if they were told that their concerns were legitimate but could be pursued just as seriously in less enforceable side agreements. My point, Mr. President, is that it is fine to represent the interests of the companies. We should do so. But we are also elected to represent other people in our country, not just large multinational corporations. We are elected to represent the majority of people. I say, Mr. President, that we should take a very strong interest not only in representing the majority of people in our country but also in representing a lot of people, ordinary citizens, wage earners, ordinary people in the countries we trade with. Because if they do not make enough money to demand the products that we produce, then we are not going to do well. Mr. President, I think this fast-track agreement, which extends on to NAFTA and GATT, is deeply skewed toward large corporate interests. That has been our recent experience with trade agreements. And I want to talk a little bit about what has happened with NAFTA. NAFTA has been in operation for 3 years. And we heard a lot about what NAFTA was going to do for all of us. We have an opportunity now to look at the results with NAFTA. They include loss of jobs, suppression of wages, and the weakening of food, safety, and pollution laws. Mr. President, if we repeat these mistakes, we are only going to condemn ourselves to replicate some of NAFTA's worst measurable consequences. Let me draw for colleagues from a respected Economic Policy Institute report. This report was issued in September of this year and titled ``NAFTA and the States: Job Destruction is Widespread.'' EI's study concluded that ``an exploding deficit in net exports with Mexico and Canada has eliminated 394,835 U.S. jobs since NAFTA took effect in 1994.'' The report argues that this job loss contributed significantly to a 4-percent decline in real median wages in the United States since 1993. Minnesota, according to this report, lost about 6,500 jobs due to the NAFTA-related trade deficit between 1993 and 1996, contributing to about a 3.8 percent drop in real median wages. Mr. President, last month the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy published a study which tracked the performance and actions of a number of companies which belong to a major corporate coalition which is advocating passage of fast track. The study found that the 40 companies which are members of the America Leads on Trade coalition, from whom all of our offices have received pro-fast-track materials regularly, cut jobs in 89 U.S. plants under NAFTA. The study also documents that almost 13,000 workers who were laid off by members of this coalition, America Leads on Trade, qualified for NAFTA retraining assistance. And while jobs were being cut by these firms, these firms' profits soared and the salaries of their CEO's were significantly higher than those of executives in other leading firms. Mr. President, again, looking at the record with NAFTA, according to Public Citizen in a report released in September of this year, U.S. food imports have skyrocketed while U.S. inspections of imported food have declined significantly. The report charges 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.'' Mr. President, our experience with NAFTA can't be dismissed. Jobs and wages in the United States have gone down. We have this paradox over the last 20 years of workers' productivity going up but real wages going down. Wages have gone down in Mexico, too, despite the fact that some workers in Mexico are performing high-skill, high-productivity labor. Our trade balance has dramatically worsened with respect to Mexico. This is all in the last 3 years, post-NAFTA agreement, and the number of U.S. firms that have not only relocated to Mexico but just as importantly have threatened to relocate to Mexico have effectively held wages down. Mr. President, this is a classic tactic used in any effort to organize--companies just simply saying, ``We will go to Mexico.'' Violations of fundamental democratic rights--we care about those rights--as well as basic human and labor rights continue to occur regularly in Mexico. And a NAFTA side agreement has not significantly improved Mexico's environment--the environment degradation goes on at the Maquiladoras--nor have they done anything to raise the wages or living standards of the people. When I visited the Maquiladora I thought the environmental degradation was horrifying. I could not believe little children that I saw working in the plants. When I talked to people, they were quite often terrified to even talk to a U.S. Senator for fear of losing their job. Mr. President, I simply will say it one more time, we should be engaged in trade agreements, we should be a vital part of an international economy, and we are, but we can do it without injuring people in communities in our country and we can do it without injuring people in communities in other countries if we have the inclusion of enforceable labor rights and environmental provisions right in the agreements themselves. We don't have any like that in this fast-track proposal. Mr. President, I said at the beginning that I wouldn't support this agreement on the principle of democracy alone. To lock ourselves into trade agreements up to the year 2001--other countries in Latin America, Caribbean countries, Asian countries--without even knowing what those agreements will entail, to not be able to come out here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and introduce amendments to fight for people in your State or South Carolina or Iowa or Washington or any other State, I think denies us as Senators what is really the most cherished and I think most sacred responsibility we have, which is the responsibility to be out here fighting for people. These trade agreements affect the quality of life of people in Minnesota and all across the country. I believe that in the absence of, as a part of this trade agreement, clear fair labor standards and environmental standards and human rights standards, these trade agreements will continue to do exactly what NAFTA has done--depress the living standards of people in the United States and people in other countries, lead to further violation of human rights in other countries, not do one positive thing about environmental degradation, and ultimately it will be a good deal for large multinational corporations and a very bad deal for the people in Minnesota and the people across the country. Mr. President, by way of conclusion, I oppose this agreement because of the fast-track procedure alone. I think it is profoundly antidemocratic. I oppose it because of the empirical evidence that has come in about NAFTA. It is quite clear to me this will lead to a depressing of living standards of people in our country and people in other countries. And finally, Mr. President, I oppose this agreement not because I am not an internationalist. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant from Russia. I am an internationalist. We are in an international economy. I want our country to lead the way. But I want the United States of America to lead the way as an economic power in this international economy by advocating our values. Our values respect human dignity, our values respect human rights, our values respect protecting children's lives, our values respect the environment, and our values respect fair labor working conditions for people. That is what is lacking in this agreement. That is why I am in such profound opposition to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelly Miller be granted floor privileges during this vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to address the direction of our country's relationship with China. Right now, the Clinton administration is busy with the state visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin. A state visit is the highest, most formal diplomatic event hosted by the United States. The champagne will flow, and flattering toasts will be made. I disagree with this red carpet treatment, Mr. President. There is no question that United States-Chinese relations are crucial and important for both countries. It is wrong, however, for the United States to host a state visit for President Jiang Zemin until we see significant progress made on human rights in China. Instead of a ceremonial visit, we should be holding a working visit with the Chinese leadership, focusing on the critical issues that exist between our two nation, like human rights, weapons proliferation, and trade. China continues to wage a war against individual freedoms and human rights. Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of dissidents and advocates of political reform were detained just last year. They included human rights and pro-democracy activists, and members of religious groups. Many have been sentenced to long prison terms where they have been beaten, tortured, and denied medical care. Scores of Roman Catholics and Protestants were arrested. A crack-down in Tibet was carried out during the ``Strike Hard'' campaign. Authorities ordered the closure of monasteries in Tibet and banned the Dalai Lama's image. At one monastery which was closed, over 90 monks and novices were detained or disappeared. Harry Wu, a man of extraordinary courage and character, has documented China's extensive forced labor system. His research has identified more than 1,100 labor camps across China, many of which produce products for export to dozens of countries around the world, including the United States. Because he criticized his government, Harry Wu was also imprisoned in these camps. For 19 years in 12 different forced labor camps across China, Harry was forced to mine coal, manufacture chemicals, and build roads. He survived beatings, torture, and starvation. He witnessed the death of many of his fellow prisoners from brutality, disease, starvation, and suicide. According to Amnesty International, throughout China, mass summary executions continue to be carried out. At least 6,000 death sentences and 3,500 executions were officially recorded last year. The real figures are believed to be much higher. Our own State Department reported that in 1996: ``All public dissent against the party and government was effectively silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison terms, administration detention, or house arrest. No dissidents were known to be active at year's end.'' Mr. President, that is a chilling, deeply disturbing statement. It cuts to the core values of our Nation. And it was made by our own Government, and this administration. Yet, this week, the administration will welcome President Jiang with pomp and circumstance. These actions indicate that, where China is concerned, what we have is not a policy of constructive engagement, but one of unconditional engagement. Let us put some names and human faces to the statistics and generalities we have all heard with regards to China. In May 1996, Wang Hui was detained. She was the wife of a jailed labor activist. While detained, she was denied water and other liquids. She tried to kill herself by hanging. According to Human Rights Watch, after being cut down by police, she was punished with severe beating. Ngawang Choephel is a Fulbright Scholar from Middlebury College. He studied music, and returned to his homeland to document the ancient music and culture of Tibet. It is disappearing under the heel of the Chinese Government. As a result of his work, he was convicted in February, and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for espionage. His crime--sending videotapes of ethnic Tibetan music and dancing out of China. Last year, Wang Dan was sentenced to 11 years in prison on charges of conspiring to subvert the Chinese Government. Prior to sentencing, Wang had already been held 17 months in incommunicado detention. His crime: He was a leader of the Tiananmen movement. Two years ago, Beijing sentenced Wei Jingsheng to 14 more years of incarceration for the crime of peacefully advocating democracy and political reform. Wei had been arrested and sentenced after he wrote wall posters on the Democracy Wall outside Beijing. They argued for true democracy and denounced Deng Xiaoping. I have read Mr. Wei's work and his letter from prison. I can't tell you how impressed and moved I was by them. As a political scientist, I seldom, if ever, have read such an eloquent and intelligent espousal of democracy and human rights. Making the letters all the more remarkable is the fact that they were written while Wei was in prison or labor camps, mostly in solitary confinement. He has been jailed for all but 6 months of the last 18 years. Wei Jingshen is not only China's most prominent dissident and prisoner of conscience, but ranks with the greatest fighters for democracy and human rights of this century. He brings to mind Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and, of course, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I was honored to join many of my colleagues in nominating Wei for the Nobel Peace Prize. Last week, Mr. Wei's sister came to the United States to tell the administration that he is dying in jail, and that this summit may be his last chance of emerging from detention alive. It is urgent that the Chinese Government release Wei and that he be given the medical care that he desperately needs, but has been denied. By agreeing to this state visit without any significant concessions on human rights, like the release of Wei Jingsheng, the Clinton administration squandered its strongest source of leverage with Beijing. This is not to say that all dialog between the United States and China or that working level visits are wrong. Instead, I believe that the symbolism of a state level visit is inappropriate given our strong disagreement with China over its human rights record. That is why I cosponsored a resolution with Senators Feingold and Helms to urge the President to downgrade this event from a state visit to working visit. The Chinese have said they do not welcome American advice on what they view as a ``purely internal affair.'' Welcome or not, President Clinton must insist that China's leaders take specific actions on human rights. Indeed, I believe strongly that the administration has a moral duty to press a range of issues with the Chinese Government that it may not welcome, but that are of enormous important to the Chinese people, and the United States. Specifically, I call on President Clinton to demand: The immediate and unconditional release of Wei Jingsheng, Wang Dan, and other prisoners of conscience held in jails in China and Tibet. Improvement in the conditions under which political, religious, and labor dissidents are detained in China and Tibet. This includes providing prisoners with adequate medical care and allowing international humanitarian agencies access to detention facilities. Significant progress in improving the overall human rights conditions in China and Tibet. The Chinese Government must take concrete steps to increase freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, in order to comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which it signed in 1948. Some say that we cannot influence what goes on in China, that the country is too proud, too large, and that changes take too long. I disagree. For years we have pressured the Chinese on human rights, and to let up now is tantamount to defeat for the cause of human justice. Dissidents who have been freed and come to the United States have thanked advocates for keeping them alive, by keeping the pressure on, and focusing attention on their plight. As Americans, it is our duty and in our interest to make the extra effort required to promote freedom and democracy in China, and to bring it into compliance with international standards on human rights. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask colleagues whether or not there would be an opportunity to speak 5 minutes in morning business? Is that all right with my colleagues?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to comment on what is a challenge unique in human history that we face as a nation, and I am talking about global warming. It is unique because we have to make important decisions without a visible crisis staring us in the face. In the 1970's, we had the long gas lines, we had two oil price shocks, the taking of hostages by a revolutionary mob in Iran, and that spurred our Nation to reduce its reliance on oil. And in the 1960's and the 1970's we had the dark clouds of particulates and the smog that smothered urban areas which moved us to clean up the air. Today, we are faced with a potentially greater threat, but it is not a visible threat. We are talking about something that is going to happen, something that is going to affect our children and their children, and the question is what are we going to do? It is a challenge for my State of Minnesota. It is a challenge for our country. It is a challenge for the whole human race. It is also a challenge about leadership. I am talking about the problem of global warming, the problem of climate change. In 1992, for the Earth summit, President Bush made a commitment to return greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and we have not lived up to that commitment. We have not honored that commitment. I believe the President, in 1993, made a similar commitment that we would reduce our greenhouse gases to the 1990 level by the year 2000. I believe that the President's announcement today will fall far short of meeting this challenge--but I certainly want to say to the President and to the White House that I appreciate their efforts to try to move this process forward as we move toward a very important international gathering in Kyoto. For more than a decade, the scientific community has investigated the issue. Initially, its reports called for more research, better modeling techniques, more data. But in December 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of more than 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, concluded that there was a discernible human impact on global climate. In June, more than 2,000 U.S. scientists, including Nobel laureates, signed the Scientists' Statement on Global Disruption, which reads in part that the accumulation of greenhouse gases commits the Earth irreversibly to further global climate change and consequent ecological, economic and social disruption. Mr. President, I believe as a Senator from Minnesota that we have reached a point where unduly delaying action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is foolhardy and it is tantamount to betrayal of our future generations. We know what this is going to do. The consequences can be catastrophic for our country and for the world, and I believe that the President and the United States of America have to do better in addressing this challenge. What has saddened me about this debate is that I believe we should be below 1990 levels certainly before the year 2010. I believe our country should make a commitment to meeting these kind of targets. I think the evidence shows that as opposed to being on the defensive, we should be proactive, and the very bridge the President talks about building to the next century is going to be a bridge that combines a sustainable environment with sustainable energy with a sustainable economy. I think the country that is the most clean country is going to be the country with an economy powered by clean technologies, industries and businesses. It is going to be a country run with an emphasis on energy efficiency and with a renewable energy policy. It is going to be a country which will generate far more jobs in the renewable energy and clean technology sectors, which are labor intensive, small business intensive and community building sectors. We have an opportunity as we move into the next millennium to really create a new marriage between our environment and our economy. We are all but strangers and guests on this land, as the Catholic bishops have said. We have to take action now. What the President is calling for is not likely to be enough to address this challenge and the task before us. We can do better as a nation. We can be more respectful of our environment while still growing our economy. In the Red River Valley, the people of North Dakota and people of Minnesota went through a living hell this past winter and spring. We don't want the floods in the Red River Valley to be 5-year occurrences. And there will be other catastrophic consequences from global warming. For my State it could be agricultural devastation; for my State it could be deforestation and lower lake levels in the Boundary Waters, an area that we love, a crown jewel wilderness area in northern Minnesota. The more important point, however, is that not only for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren we need to take much stronger action. We have to stand up to some of the powerful forces that are saying no to a meaningful treaty. We have to lay out a proactive, positive agenda which makes it crystal clear that energy efficiency and renewable energy and clean technologies will create many more small businesses and many more jobs for our country. This marriage between our economy and our environment would respect the environment, respect the economy, and would give us an energy policy that is much more productive and positive, while helping us to build and sustain our communities and our country. I am disappointed in the position the President seems to have taken on targets and timetables for climate change action. I hope as we move forward toward an international treaty, our country will take a stronger negotiating position. We need to be the leaders of the world in meeting what I think is perhaps the most profound environmental challenge which we have ever faced. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.