Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. It is my intention to speak on the bill in general and to try to analyze the overall agreement. I will in all likelihood join with Senator Dodd in his amendment later.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for their courtesy. Let me first of all start out by saying I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Sarbanes, the Senator from Maryland. Senator Sarbanes talked about equitable deficit reduction. I emphasize the equitable part of that formulation. Mr. President, those on both sides labored very hard. People make the decisions they think are the right decisions. I do not rise to point an accusatory finger at any of my colleagues. As I look at this agreement, I do not see that equitable deficit reduction. To give but one example, I see very little of the shared sacrifice, and I think to be shared sacrifice we would have to extend part of the deficit reduction burden onto large and wealthy corporations and zero in on what has been called corporate welfare. That means some of our large multinational corporations--oil and gas, mining, pharmaceutical, health care conglomerates, and others--who now reap benefits of huge loopholes in our Tax Code, who are fed, if you will, at the trough of unjustified tax giveaways, would, in fact, be required to pay their fair share toward deficit reduction. They are the heavy hitters, the well connected. They are the players. That is not a part of this budget agreement. I do not think what we have here is equitable deficit reduction. I know a number of my colleagues, as they look at some of these loopholes and deductions or as they make the case for across-the-board, what I call kind of a scatter-gun approach to cuts in capital gains or estate tax, make the argument this will bolster the economy by boosting savings and investments. I cite a report by the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee from just a few short years ago: Whether aimed at increasing efficiency or growth, many so- called ``growth enhancements'' backfire. This is due to two factors. First, few incentives are very powerful, and simply do not result in large increases in output. Second, they typically lose revenues, increasing government borrowing as a consequence, and thus reducing the accumulation of private capital as a result. My friends say to me, ``But we are balancing the budget.'' I smile and say, ``We will see.'' My guess is, as I look at those who are in control of the committees and especially are going to be dealing with the tax legislation, it looks to me like we go toward indexing capital gains. It looks to me that we will have across-the-board cuts in capital gains in estate not targeted to family business, not targeted to middle income, with the lion's share of benefits going to the very top of the American population. Mr. President, studies have shown consistently that households with incomes of over $100,000 a year receive approximately 75 percent of the capital gains income. If the goal is to provide relief to middle-income taxpayers, that is one thing, but what is happening here is the vast majority of the benefits go to those at the very top. At the same time, as we look at capital gains or estate tax, if you talk about family farmers or small businesses, fine. But I think that under the cover of the problems of small family farmers and small business people we are seeing in this budget agreement massive tax breaks to those who least need it. This estate tax goes to some of our families. Some of the families that will benefit are Cargo Co., a family-owned company, or Mars Candy or Continental Grain. I suggest to you that the multinational corporations hardly need more by way of more tax breaks. Mr. President, I think many Democrats are going to vote for this budget agreement but with far less enthusiasm than their public posture suggests. They are hoping when the reconciliation bill fills in the blanks on the budget and it comes to the floor this summer, we will not explode the deficits, and in addition, the critical investments in health care and education and children and all the rest that we believe in will, in fact, be there. As I look at the record of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over the last couple of years, I have seen a defeat of efforts to go after corporate welfare. I have seen outrageous tax giveaways. I have seen a relentless attack on those in society least able to protect themselves, and I have seen very little standard of fairness when it comes to deficit reduction. I have seen deficit reduction based upon the path of least political resistance. Cut the benefits for those who are weakest --for children, for legal immigrants, for low- and moderate-income people, but when it comes to the subsidies for large oil companies or big insurance companies or some of the multinational corporations, big grain companies, no; they need more by way of benefits. I agree with my colleague from Maryland, I fear, and I think there is every reason to believe this based upon the pronouncements I have heard so far, that when we get to the tax part of this package we will see backloaded cuts, indexing, and cuts in capital gains and estate taxes that will explode the deficit as we move into the next millennium, at the very time, I might add, Mr. President, that many of us baby boomers come of age and we will have precious little by way of investment. Mr. President, I have several amendments that I will propose. I will start out joining with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. But I just want to highlight a few things I want to focus on. First let me talk a little bit about child nutrition. The School Breakfast Program, currently 6.5 million children participate. That is barely half of the children that are eligible. In the reform bill passed last year, all in the name of deficit reduction, we eliminated, wiped out grants for schools to start up the School Breakfast Program. Anybody who understands anything about education, anybody who understands anything about children, anybody who spends any time in schools will certainly acknowledge the fact that children who come to school hungry and cannot participate in school breakfast because we cut the funding for this program, are not going to be able to do as well in school as children who do not come to school hungry. Where is the standard of fairness? Mr. President, we also have a Summer Food Service Program, not real well known. As a matter of fact, only 2 million out of 14 million children participate because we do not adequately fund it. But do you want to know something, Mr. President? These children that really are so dependent upon school lunch and school breakfast, where it is available, during the summer they are malnourished and do not have an adequate diet. We are able to fund only 2 million out of 14 million children. Mr. President, in my amendment I will call for increasing the funding for this program. Finally, I want to talk a little bit about school construction. My friend Jonathan Kozol wrote a book called ``Savage Inequalities.'' He traveled all across the country and reported on what he observed. Mr. President, let me just make the point, I will not give specific examples, but let me say to my colleagues, we have too many children who go to rotting schools. What kind of message are we conveying to children in this country when they go to schools that are dilapidated, with rotting infrastructure, toilets that do not work, cold in the winter, too hot in the summer, crumbling buildings, decrepit? What kind of message are we conveying to these children? Are they not all God's children? Is there not some need for investment in infrastructure? The General Accounting Office reported in 1994, that over all, it would be about a $112 billion investment, and we want a $5 billion investment by way of a start as we move into the next century? Mr. President, have I not heard before speeches given, the talk about the importance of building a bridge to the next century? If we are not going to invest in rotting schools, if we are not going to invest in the infrastructure of the schools our children attend in this country, if we are not willing to invest a little bit more in child nutrition programs, if we are not willing to invest in some of what Senator Dodd's amendment, an amendment I want to join in and I know others will join, Head Start and Early Start, if we will not invest in children in these very critical early years of their lives, how can this budget agreement be a blueprint or a bridge for moving into the next century? My amendments will just simply say, take it out of corporate welfare and invest it in Head Start, child nutrition programs, and invest in the infrastructure of schools in America for our children. I have another amendment that will focus on some of the tax cuts that will say scale down the capital gains tax cut, scale down the estate tax cut, target it to middle-income people, target it to small business people, and target it to family farmers. Frankly, these large multinational corporations do not need it, nor do the top 1 or 2 percent of the population. Instead, invest in children. Invest in children. Mr. President, my final point, because I know we want to go on with the amendments, my final point, we have in the last several months been reading in Time magazine, in Newsweek magazine, there was a White House conference on the importance of early childhood development and the argument that is made is that the neuroscience evidence tells us if we do not do well for these children from the very beginning of their lives, if we to not do well with a mother expecting a child, in the very early years up to age 3, many of these children will never come to school ready to learn, and many of these children will never be prepared for life. One out of every four children in America under the age of 3 are poor. And one out of every two children of color in America under the age of 3 are poor. Mr. President, it is a scandal. It is unconscionable that we do not yet even fully fund the programs that we know work--Head Start, to give children a head start, nutrition programs so they do not come to school hungry, investment in infrastructure so the schools are inviting places as opposed to being decrepit and so demoralizing for children. Mr. President, my amendments will say invest in these areas and take it out of the subsidies of these large multinational corporations or scale back these tax giveaways that go mainly to the top 1, 2, or 3 percent of the population. To my colleagues, all of us have to make our own decisions, but for my own part, I think this is a budget without a soul. Quite frankly, I say to Democrats in particular, I think there comes a point in time where there are certain values and there are certain principles we hold dear. I think there comes a point in time when we cannot keep giving the speeches about the importance of children, the importance of education, the importance of equality of opportunity, the importance of each and every child having the same opportunity to reach his and her full potential. We cannot keep giving those speeches if we do not match the legislative lives that we live with the words that we speak. I will join with Senator Dodd in his amendment, and I will have other amendments on the floor, and I will raise this issue over and over and over again. I will raise this question over and over and over again. I do not believe this is a budget that calls for equitable deficit reduction. I do not believe this is a budget that is a bridge to the next century. I do not believe this is a budget that gives children in our country, every child--they are all God's children--the same opportunity to reach their full potential. I do not think this is a budget that invests in our future, because this budget, as opposed to being a new deal for too many children in America, is a raw deal for too many children in America, and that makes this budget unfair and that makes this budget wrong and that makes this budget not the best that we can do for children in America. Therefore, I will oppose this budget agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would say to my colleague that he is correct. I think the key issues are, when you have proposals in here, first, what you do, if you are serious about passing a piece of legislation that is going to help working families, is you take the extreme and harsh parts out, like overturning the 40-hour week. Second of all, you make sure you don't have a lot of coercion at the workplace, and that employees really do have a choice, whether it be a woman or a man. And, if so, they get either that at time-and-a-half pay or they get that time-and-a-half off when they want and need to take it. If you can make sure that happens, if you make sure that you have the important provisions to make sure that happens, and if you make sure there isn't exploitation, then it is absolutely the right direction to go. That would be, I hope, the common ground. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. It takes the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, as I said the other day, is based on a lot of sweat and tears of a lot of working families, and turns the whole idea of fairness on its head. That is absolutely right. That is why that piece of legislation went nowhere on the floor of the Senate, nor should it. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from North Dakota is absolutely correct. That is why I said earlier that I would want to point to the critical distinction between coming out here on the floor with a piece of legislation that you know threatens the labor standards of working people, that you know doesn't provide the flexibility, that you know is not going to get the votes to pass, that you know the President is going to veto, and doing what should be done, if, in fact, we care about working people and children, which is to come out with a piece of legislation that really does provide the comptime, the flexibility, without threatening people who really rely on that overtime pay.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I actually have to leave the floor in a moment. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was working in my office on some other matters, and it came to my attention that several of my colleagues, I think Senator Ashcroft and perhaps Senator McConnell of Kentucky, came down to speak about the comptime-flextime bill that Senator Ashcroft introduced, S. 4. I want to respond to some of what they had to say because I think it is important that people in the country understand this debate and how it affects their lives. Mr. President, one of the arguments that was made was that Democrats--it was a curious argument--by coming out on the floor, and I was one that did so, and Senator Kennedy was out here and there were others, that by speaking in opposition to S. 4, we did not want to debate. The legislation was stopped. There were not enough votes to proceed. So somehow we did not want to debate the bill. Mr. President, we should be clear about the difference between trying to get some legislation passed that will lead to an improvement in the quality of lives of people, as opposed to bringing out legislation which you know will never become law. At the top of the issues I care most about is campaign finance reform. I keep being told we do not have time to do it on the floor of the Senate. We have core issues to debate. Mr. President, I disagree sharply with my colleagues. I make the point that when you bring a bill to the floor of the Senate which the President has already said he would veto, when you bring a bill to the floor of the Senate, S. 4 in the form it was brought to the floor, knowing full well that you will have a significant number of Senators, certainly well over 40, in opposition, this is hardly the way to pass legislation. You can score political points. You can come to the floor today and try and score political points, but that is not a substitute for a substantive argument and debate. Now, Mr. President, we should be clear about what we oppose because I do not think it is a question of what I oppose, as the Senator from Minnesota. I think it is a question of how people in the country may view this. S. 4 is an overreach. It did not go anywhere on the floor of the Senate. It was to be vetoed by the President. It will never become the law of the land because it is an overreach. It takes the Fair Labor Standards Act--we are talking about 50 years of people's history, if you will, with the idea being that when you work overtime you get compensated at time and a half--and it turns it on its head. It goes to an 80-hour work period so that an employee could end up working 60 hours one week, 20 hours the next week with no overtime pay. Now, if you think in theory all employees will have the power to say to employers, ``No, we do not want to work under these conditions,'' if you are naive enough to believe that, believe it. If you do not know much about the world of the workplace, believe it. But that is why we have some protections for working people. We are not about to stand and watch the 40-hour workweek overturned. We are not about to see fair labor standards that have been so important to working families, so important to their wage levels, so important to people being treated with dignity and respect, overturned. It is, as they say, a nonstarter. That is why that legislation, when it came to the floor was a nonstarter. We had debate. I heard colleagues say we did not want to debate. We had debate. The second point, both the 80-hour 2-week framework and flextime at hour for hour, where you get an hour off for an hour of overtime, but no time and a half, these are, essentially, cuts in pay. So, get real. We should talk about the purported goal of the bill that was introduced and what should be our goal, which is to give employees more flexibility. If, in fact, a woman or a man wants to bank time--now I am talking about comptime--by working overtime 1 week and then saying, ``Look, I would like to take that as time off rather than getting paid cash time and a half. Rather than getting an hour and a half in pay for the hour I worked overtime, I would like to have an hour and a half in paid time off. I could do some things with my family that would be important to my family.'' Great. But make sure that is what the legislation is. That is not the legislation that was on the floor of the Senate. Two out of the three options, the flextime proposal and the 80-hour 2-week proposal, represent cuts in pay for people. It represented an all-out assault on the Fair Labor Standards Act, an all-out assault on the idea of decent jobs, overtime pay for overtime work. So, now let's talk about where there could be common ground. Before I do that, Mr. President, let me deal with a couple of other arguments that were made that I think are really quite important. Mr. President, one of the arguments that was made was that people do not have, and I cannot believe my colleagues made this argument, that, right now, because of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the laws we live under, there is no way to have flexibility. I am the ranking minority member of the subcommittee which has considered this topic, with Senator DeWine, who has been an excellent chair, by the way. We had people come in and testify about the existing flexibility. There are people in the country who work four 10-hour days and then they do not work on a Friday. There are people who work four 9-hour days and then they work half a day on Friday or Monday. There are people that come in at 7 o'clock and work to until 3 o'clock or come in and 10 o'clock and work until 6 o'clock, whatever the case might be. There are all sorts of ways in which there can be flexibility right now. The sad thing is a lot of companies do not provide that to their employees, but we should not confuse the issue. That has nothing to do with the Fair Labor Standards Act. That cannot be used as a pretext for overturning the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are not going to let that happen. To argue there is no flexibility or no way that current law allows it is just simply not the case. Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri also claims that his bill simply makes available to private-sector workers the same benefits that Federal employees have. He is wrong. The Federal employee program gives employees the right to choose whether to have flexible schedules. S. 4 does not do that. The Senator also overlooks the many and substantial job protections that Federal employees enjoy that do not apply to the private sector workers. By the way, when it comes to health care benefits and pension benefits and much larger percentage of Federal employees being unionized and having bargaining powers, I would be pleased to join with my colleagues to achieve parity for people in the private sector. Mr. President, first and foremost, Federal workers are covered by civil service rules requiring good cause for discharge or discipline. That is, Federal employees cannot be suspended, discharged, or disciplined without notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond in a hearing. Private employees, by contrast, are typically ``at will'' employees. An employer can discharge or discipline those employees for any reason. It is completely different. People in the private sector do not have the protection Federal employees have. Private employees can be fired because the employer does not like the color of their hair. They can be suspended because the employer does not like their political beliefs. These workers have no redress. They cannot complain to anyone. They have no right to a hearing, and they certainly do not have the right to get their jobs back. Only if private employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement do they have the right to a hearing before they can be fired, and only about 15 percent of the private work force in this country is covered by such a contract. Mr. President, these are critical differences between public and private employees. They underscore how careful we must be before we blindly apply Federal programs to the private sector. The possibility for exploitation of private-sector employees is far greater than in the public sector. Let me give an example of something that happened in the Labor Committee. We will see what happens when the bill returns to the floor. I had an amendment that says we should give the employees real flexibility. Now, if Mary Jones has banked 20 hours that she earned by working overtime and she now wants to take that time off and she asks for the hour and a half paid time off for each of those overtime hours worked, if she wants to do it for reasons that are laid out in the Family and Medical Leave Act, because a family member is ill, or a new child has been born, she should be able to do it. She should not have to have that approved. Those are her hours she banked, her earned compensation. Give her the flexibility. Do not just leave it in the hand of the employer to ultimately decide to sign off on everything. That amendment was defeated. Mr. President, if we want to make sure that private employees have flexibility, then we must have such a provision. Mr. President, there are no sweatshops, my colleague mentioned, in the Federal sector. The Department of Labor found that 50 percent of garment shops failed to comply with minimum wage, overtime, or child labor laws--50 percent. Yet the Republican bill would give employers in the garment industry one more tool to abuse their employees. I had an amendment that said we should exclude people that work in some of these sectors of the work force that are already exploited because otherwise you are giving employers another way of not paying people overtime. That amendment was defeated. I repeat on the floor of the Senate, that amendment was defeated. Very revealing. We offered an amendment in the Labor Committee to exclude garment workers and other especially vulnerable employees of the bill. It was defeated on a party-line vote. The Senator from Missouri quoted a song very familiar to me on the floor this week. I said, ``I know that song, Florence Reese wrote that.'' I know that because my wife's family is from Appalachia and this was about the coal mining struggles. Florence Reese was from Harlan County, KY. Mr. President, I think the vote to deny an exemption to garment workers and other vulnerable employees shows pretty clearly which side the Republicans are on in this debate. I think the vote not to provide an exemption for those employees, who we already know are exploited-- the evidence is irrefutable and irreducible--shows clearly which side too many of my Republican colleagues are on. And by the way, not the side that Florence Reese was singing about, which is the side of working people. Mr. President, another important difference between the public and private sector is that the Federal agencies do not go bankrupt. Contrast this with private businesses. In 1995, 52,000 American businesses filed for bankruptcy. The rate of business failures in the garment industry is twice the national average. In construction, the rate of bankruptcy is much higher than the national average. If an employer goes bankrupt when an employee has comptime banked, the worker loses all his or her time and money. Mr. President, under S. 4 comptime hours do not count as wages in a bankruptcy proceeding, so the worker who accepted comptime instead of paid overtime would be out of luck. We had an amendment ready in the Labor Committee markup to fix this problem but, it is not in the bill. Mr. President, I see my colleague on the floor and I do not want to take up so much time that he does not have an opportunity to speak but let me make one of many other points I could make by way of correcting the Record. Mr. President, my colleague from Missouri said Democrats have not read the bill. I read the bill. I can say, and I do no damage to the truth, that this bill violates the 40-hour week and sets up an 80-hour 2-week framework, and people can work 50 hours or 60 hours one week and they get no overtime pay if the employer decides the arrangement should be such that the employee can choose to get some time off the next week, but they do not get time and a half compensation as either cash or time. I can safely say that there is no effort here to really providing employees the flexibility to choose when to use comp time. Mr. President, under the Ashcroft bill, flexible credit hours are defined as hours that the employer and the employee jointly designate for the employee to work so as to ``reduce the hours worked'' at a later time. This is on page 19, lines 14 through 18 of the bill. My colleague from Missouri claimed that the opponents of S. 4 would support the legislation, if only we would read the bill. Mr. President, I respectfully suggest that my colleague needs to take another look at this legislation. It doesn't do what the proponents claim. The language shows that. Federal law defines ``credit hours'' as hours which the employee elects to work. Let me repeat that. Federal law defines ``credit hours'' as hours which the employee elects to work so as to vary the length of the workweek or workday. Under the Ashcroft bill, you have to have the employer and the employee together designating this. If the employer doesn't want to go along with this--and the employers quite often have the power--the employee doesn't get to make that decision. So let's not say that this bill is going to give employees in the private sector what employees in the Federal sector have. It is right there in the bill on page 19, lines 14 to 18. Mr. President, I think I have made my case. We have had some time to debate this bill. The bill went nowhere because the bill, as opposed to providing employees flexibility, ends up being a way in which too many employers all across the country can basically cut the pay for workers. It amounts to a paycheck cut for workers. We are not going to let that happen. The President wouldn't let that happen. So I suggest that my colleagues, next time we have the debate, do not come out on the floor and say that we have not read the bill. We read the bill. That is why I oppose it. Don't come out on the floor and say that we are going to give the private-sector employees the same opportunities as the Federal-sector employees have. That is not the case. Don't come out on the floor and say that this will provide flexibility for employees. It doesn't. Don't come out on the floor and pretend that you have not done damage to the very cherished idea of a 40-hour workweek, and, that, by golly, people should get the functional equivalent of overtime pay, paid time off at time and a half, because this bill doesn't really provide real guarantees that it will happen. And don't come out here on the floor of the Senate and say that all these great things are going to happen in the work force when we have clear examples of people who work, such as in the garment industry, who are already being exploited, and you don't want to provide them any kind of exemption or any kind of special protection. The arguments just simply don't carry the day. Mr. President, I would suggest to my colleagues that I came out on the floor to correct the Record, that there is a good reason why the bill went nowhere, there is a good reason why the President is going to veto it. I hope we will see some serious work that we will do together to make some major corrections and have a really strong piece of legislation that will provide working women and men with the flexibility they need, and which will be family friendly. And, by the way, I think Senator Murray has an excellent idea to expand the Family Medical Leave Act for some additional hours off for a family. There are a lot of things that we can do to really make this a piece of legislation that is family friendly, that is worker friendly. And that is what I think we will do.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, at a time when communities are demanding that schools provide quality education; at a time when many schools talk of scarce resources; at a time when parents ask that their children's schools be safe and orderly places to learn--it is easier sometimes to find a scapegoat than to address the real problems. I am greatly concerned that the scapegoat has become children with disabilities. Even though they have only had the right to an education for 22 years--I have heard over and over again that it is those children who gobble up scarce resources and who prevent other children from receiving a decent education. But I have heard from parents whose children have disabilities, I have met these children. They just want to learn. And the civil rights statute that we passed 22 years ago says that to not educate them is to illegally discriminate against them. But still, these students and parents are afraid that schools will retreat to segregation and separate schooling. We must listen to these voices of pleading and concern. There are 100,000 children in Minnesota that are protected by this statute, and up to 200,000 parents. IDEA strives to keep these students in school in as normal an environment as possible because integration gives them the chance they deserve. What a noble goal. What achievements we have seen over the years since the law was written. The first generation of IDEA educated children are just now coming into their own in this country and I believe that we all benefit immeasurably from their developed talents and abilities. While there have been problems with IDEA, it is my belief that the problems stem not from the law itself, but from the enforcement and implementation of this law. I know the bill we have before us represents a delicate compromise-- and that any successful amendment has the potential to make the deal crumble. I have not come to the floor this morning seeking to change this bill. But I cannot vote for this bill without pointing out the trouble spots I see. The disability community has not had much time to fully analyze this bill. This is a fact that I mentioned in my letter last Monday to Chairman Jeffords and Senator Kennedy, while asking them to postpone this markup. A quick review of this bill shows that, at least among parents and students, the discipline section has raised the most red flags. There is a concern that a manifestation determination review will be a very difficult process for parents, particularly low-income parents who may not have access to psychologists and other professionals. Advocates are particularly worried about the courts being replaced by an administrative hearing officer because they may be appointed by an LEA, there are different rules of evidence and there is no assurance that they will be attorneys or appropriately qualified. Another concern raised by parents is how substantially likely to result in injury to self or others will be interpreted. Children with autism, Tourette's syndrome, ADHD or ADD and severe emotional disturbances are especially at risk. And last we need to ask where children will be placed--what alternative placements are available? If the primary alternative is home-bound placement we will see families facing incredible stress and financial hardships. If the primary alternative is a segregated setting we run the risk of returning to a system that offered minimal education to children in isolated, warehouse-like settings. That said, I would like to congratulate the leadership team that assembled this bill in marathon sessions for the last 8 weeks. On February 20, 1997 a bipartisan, bicameral working group was established to develop a compromise bill. This working group included a representative from the Department of Education--Judy Heumann, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services-- and the following offices: Harkin, Kennedy, Dodd, Jeffords, Coats, Frist, Martinez, Scott, Miller, Goodling, Riggs, and Castle. The facilitator of the group was David Hoppe, the majority leader's chief of staff. A member of my staff was intimately involved in this process, and by his and all accounts this was an impressive display of bipartisan negotiation. The first work product of the group was a statement of principles. The major goal of the working group was to review, strengthen, and improve IDEA to better educate children with disabilities, and enable them to receive a quality education. With this goal in mind, the working group agreed to start with current law and build on the actions, experiences, information, and research gathered over the life of the law, particularly over the past 3 years. The group met for 7 weeks, often for 12 hours a day, to reach an agreement that all could support. I believe that the bill improves current law in several ways. The bill includes significant increases for the IDEA preschool program and significant increases for the early intervention program under part H. The final agreement significantly improves and strengthens the Individualized Education Plan [IEP] by, among other things, relating a child's education to what children without disabilities are receiving and providing report cards just like nondisabled students receive. Of great concern to my home State of Minnesota, the bill retains short- term objectives which are planned goals in the education of children with disabilities that parents consider a crucial device for ensuring success and accountability. The bill also specifies that regular teachers will be part of the IEP team, where appropriate, and the report language encourages the participation of school health professionals where appropriate. The new bill requires parents to be included in the group making placement decisions about their child, as opposed to current law, which in some States allows another group other than the IEP team to make placement decisions. The new bill ensures that States and local school districts include children with disabilities in their performance goals, indicators, and general assessments. The bill ensures parental consent for triennial reevaluations--not just initial evaluations as under current law--and ensures that evaluations are relevant to the child's instructional needs. The bill includes improvements in the early intervention program, including clarification that infants and toddlers should receive services in natural environments, such as their homes, where appropriate. IDEA funding will now cover support services related to a student's disability. For example, the final agreement now lists orientation and mobility services for vision-impaired children as a related service-- currently required by interpretation--and includes report language clarifying that children with disabilities should receive travel training--including how to use public transportation where it is deemed appropriate as part of their IEP. The bill requires States to monitor school districts to determine whether they are disproportionately segregating minority children in certain placements and to determine whether there is a disproportionate number of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities. The bill gives the Secretary and State educational agencies [SEA's] greater power to implement the law by providing authority to withhold all or some funds when schools violate IDEA. Currently, the Secretary is required to withhold all funds if there is a violation; this punishment was viewed as too strict and never applied. The bill contains provisions to ensure that increases in Federal appropriations are not offset by State decreases in spending. The State maintenance of effort provisions give reasonable authority to the Secretary of Education to establish criteria for exceptions if necessary. The bill codifies local maintenance of effort provisions from regulations and includes reasonable additional exemptions for when a locality need not maintain financial efforts for special education--for example when a teacher at the high end of the pay scale retires and is replaced by a recent graduate. The bill reduces paperwork. State and local applications need be submitted only once and thereafter they need to submit only amendments necessitated by compliance problems or changes in the law. Importantly, when it comes to discipline, the bill provides for no cessation of services for IDEA students, no separate IDEA provision on the treatment of disruptive children, and no unilateral authority to determine who is dangerous and remove them. These improvements in the IDEA law do make a difference and I'm pleased that they were adopted. But the drawbacks I mentioned earlier hamper my enthusiasm for the bill. While I will vote for the bill today, I have chosen not to cosponsor this bill. I hope that Members will continue to listen to the voices of parents, who are faced with the daily task of raising and educating their children. They know firsthand how IDEA is implemented at the local level and thus we must listen to--and address--the concerns that they raise. Let us all remember who this bill is for, and strive to make it work for them.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry. Yes, of course.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is somewhat surprising, and not very encouraging, that we are considering such a harsh version of S. 4 today. The bill before us is essentially the version which was reported out of the Labor Committee on a straight party-line vote. That vote followed rejection by a majority on the committee of a number of amendments which would have improved the bill considerably. All those amendments were defeated on a straight party-line vote. This version of S. 4 makes almost no changes which directly address the serious and substantive problems in the bill during committee consideration. The managers' amendment has just been made available this morning, so we have not been able to examine it in detail. But it does not appear to be much of an effort to make the bill more acceptable to those who have made a real effort to improve the bill so far. It is surprising and discouraging that we are considering this particular version of S. 4 for two reasons. First, many of our colleagues are aware that a comptime bill has passed the House of Representatives. That bill is considerably milder than this bill in its undermining of basic, long-respected labor protections. The House-passed bill does not directly undercut the 40- hour workweek. It does not give employers the option of offering only hour-for-hour compensatory time off in exchange for overtime work--so- called flextime. Still, the House bill passed narrowly, and it passed under the threat of a likely veto by the President. The President has said he would like to sign a comptime bill. But the Department of Labor has signaled that the President would likely veto a bill like the House bill. In my opinion, a veto of the House-passed bill would clearly be warranted because that bill does not meet the standards of anyone who is serious about trying to help employees cope with the competing demands of work and families. The House has narrowly passed a bill which likely would, and certainly should, be vetoed. So what is the Senate doing today? Here in the Senate we are considering a bill that is a far blunter and a far more dangerous attack on workers with families, a bill which we all know cannot be enacted in its present form. We know an 80-hour biweekly work period will not become law. Why are we debating it? Do we think the public is fooled by a bill which does away with the 40-hour workweek simply because the measure's proponents say it is voluntary? It is somewhat absurd. If a Member came and offered a bill doing away with the minimum wage--but on a voluntary basis--we would not take it seriously. If a bill offered employees the voluntary choice of working regularly in conditions which threaten life and limb, we would not take it seriously. A bill doing away with the 40-hour workweek cannot be enacted as drafted, and it should not even be taking our time here today. The second reason I find it surprising and discouraging that we are discussing this particular version of comptime is that I sat through two hearings on this topic in the Labor Subcommittee on Employment and Training, where I serve as ranking minority member. I heard a great deal of illuminating testimony during the subcommittee hearings. I also engaged, as did others in the Labor Committee, in a respectably rigorous markup of this bill in the full committee. During these subcommittee and committee meetings we heard a number of expressions of sympathy and concern from Republican colleagues regarding criticisms of S. 4 raised by myself and others. These expressions of concern might have been slightly more persuasive if even one Republican could have found a way to vote for even one Democratic amendment in the committee. Nonetheless, I thought I detected a desire to make this a workable bill. There were suggestions that ways might be found to fix problems in the bill. Some of us thought that there would be an effort to address the more serious of our concerns between committee and the floor. But the minor changes in the managers' amendment, with one exception do not begin to do that. I will come back to the managers' amendment and our detailed criticisms of this bill's comptime provisions later. But what we have before us today is hardly an effort at accommodation. The bill in its current form is little more than an affront. Not only have the most offensive provisions for employees--the 80-hour biweekly work period and so-called flextime--not been pulled from the bill. But the comptime provisions which could be the basis of discussion and agreement remain largely unchanged. Mr. President, many of us on the minority side would like nothing better than to help provide genuine flexibility to working Americans with families. That is what this bill's press materials promise it would do. That is what some of us set out to do 4 years ago when we pushed hard to win eventual passage of the Family Medical Leave Act. Some of today's proponents of S. 4 issued dire warnings back then that the FMLA would harm businesses and the economy. It hasn't. The FMLA has worked well. That is why our side offered two amendments to S. 4 in committee which would have expanded the FMLA. Millions of workers do not currently enjoy the benefits of the FMLA. Millions who do are able to use it only for medical reasons, not for other times of true family need and importance, such as parent-teacher conferences. This bill purports to provide greater flexibility to employees, so we sought to expand the ability to take unpaid leave in exceptional family circumstances. Unfortunately, both amendments to that effect were defeated. Many of us on the minority side also would like nothing better than to allow working Americans with families to get more control over their work schedules. What could be more important than to help people juggle work and family by getting more control over their work schedules? That was the motivation behind an amendment I offered in committee which would have ensured that employees who accumulate comptime as envisioned by this bill would actually get to use it when they want and need to use it. That seemed simple enough. If the idea of the bill is to help employees get control of their work schedules, if the idea is to be family friendly, then people who accumulate comptime under this bill, which is compensation that has already been earned at some prior date, not vacation or some other benefit conferred by the employer, but previously earned compensation, should be able to use it when they want and need to use it. My amendment included very reasonable restrictions to avoid harm to employers. It was an honest amendment. It sought to take this bill at its word. At least it sought to take the bill at the word of its own advertising. It sought to provide employees who have families just a little more control over their work schedules by allowing them to choose when it is that they use their earned comptime. In the case of this bill, however, its advertising and its content are not the same thing at all. Undoubtedly, many workers who may have heard this bill described by it proponents, who may even have heard it described as a Mother's Day gift to working mothers, probably have assumed that if the bill passes and they earn comptime, then they will be able, within reason, to choose when to use that comptime. Sadly, they would be wrong. This bill does not provide for that. My amendment sought to repair this fairly obvious, fairly egregious flaw. But it was defeated. Many of us on the minority side even find the idea of a truly voluntary choice between cash overtime on one hand, and paid time off at a premium rate on the other--in other words, between cash overtime and comptime--to be an attractive idea on its face. We think comptime might be able to work to the benefit of both employers and employees if it is drafted properly. Therefore, in the committee we offered a number of additional amendments whose purpose was to take seriously the idea that comptime is indeed meant to deliver on what the title of S. 4 promises. The bill is called the Family Friendly Workplace Act. All those amendments were defeated. Comptime will not be an easy idea to make work in a way that is truly voluntary. A lot of care must go into drafting such a bill. It is worth remembering that the Fair Labor Standards Act has served both employers and employees well since its initial passage in 1938. We should amend it with care. Nonetheless, the whole law is not sacred. Democrats and working people are not stuck in the past. If we can move forward, and not turn back the clock, it might be possible and desirable to change the Fair Labor Standards Act. But not in the way this bill suggests-- not in a way that attempts to turn back the clock when it comes to basic workplace protections. After the two hearings we held in the Labor Committee's Subcommittee on Employment and Training, I was frankly skeptical about whether comptime could be made truly voluntary and beneficial for employees. It was the testimony of some of the majority witnesses which made me even more skeptical than I was before the hearings. Looking at the version of the bill which has now been brought to the floor, my skepticism appears to have been justified. But still I think comptime could be attractive for many working people if it is drafted properly. There are two basic principles which at a minimum are required to make comptime attractive for employees: First, it must be truly voluntary; second, employees must really get to use their accumulated comptime when they want and need to use it. A number of additional protections would be necessary as details to make comptime work. But these two principles are fundamental. As currently drafted, S. 4 fails both tests. It has additional problems, but above all S. 4 as drafted barely even pretends to be about providing flexibility for working people. It is flexibility for employers. It is flexibility for employers, combined with ways to cut pay for employees. It disfigures what could be a decent idea, comptime, and it adds provisions that even leaders in the House of Representatives did not attempt, which would directly cut workers' pay. Mr. President, we all understand the game of staking out an extreme position in the hope that you can get more of what you want through creating the illusion of compromise from a drastic proposal. I hope we will not spend our time on that game. But it appears that is the game we are playing with this bill. Let us just drop the 80-hour biweekly work period from the bill. It is not a real proposal. It is an insult to working people with families. Many workers face enough indignities without Congress adding to them. Let us drop this frontal attack on the principle of the 40- hour work week. Second, let us drop the flex hours provision from this bill. That is the provision which would ask workers to work overtime with no premium compensation, only hour-for-hour paid time off. These are provisions which not even the House of Representatives included in their bill. No one can argue with a straight face that these are not pay-cut provisions. Their purpose is to cut pay. The President will not sign a bill with such provisions. The 80-hour and the flextime provisions simply detract and distract from the debate we should have about comptime. Mr. President, I would like to conclude with some remarks about working families. S. 4 is called the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I believe the friendliest thing we could probably do for most working people who have families in America would be to increase their pay. We did that for millions of American workers last year. Perhaps the minimum wage bill which was so fiercely resisted by a number of colleagues on the majority side and by a number of groups who are supporting S. 4 should have been called the Family Friendly Workplace Act. But whether that is true or not, I believe it is safe to say that any objective person who reads this bill, S. 4, carefully, a person with some familiarity with modern workplaces, might wonder whether its title is actually a grim attempt at humor. They might wonder whether the title, ``Family Friendly Workplace Act,'' is really a mean-spirited and sarcastic message to working Americans. That is because no one who reads this bill carefully, in its current form, could reasonably describe it as family friendly. S. 4 as written is family-unfriendly. It is a thinly disguised effort to reduce pay and to help employers avoid paying overtime. That is not just rhetoric. That is the bill. I wonder how many families will consider this bill to represent a friendly gesture when we strip it of its happy-face packaging and expose it for what it is: an effort to reduce pay and to help employers avoid paying overtime? Plenty of employers do try to avoid paying overtime already under current law. And far too many succeed, as we will see later during our debate. We don't need to provide encouragement to cut more pay and avoid paying more overtime. We will continue to debate S. 4. I look forward to a debate over a number of amendments. I hope to offer one or more myself. I hope that debate can focus on how to construct a truly voluntary and beneficial comptime bill. But a bill which features two pay-cutting options out of a total of three options for employers and employees is not family friendly. Mr. President, I would also like to add a brief remark concerning the Managers' amendment. I appreciate the Senator from Ohio's description of it. While we are only seeing it now for the first time, I think we can say that it doesn't go very far toward addressing the deep, substantive concerns many of us have raised against S. 4. We had some discussion during the committee markup. There was some hope that we could actually work together to make this bill acceptable. But this amendment, as I understand it, makes fairly minor changes-- with one exception. My understanding of the managers' amendment is that it changes the bill's definition of who would be considered a covered employee. That is a substantive step. The change takes a step toward addressing a criticism we raised in committee. It ensures that many part-time and temporary workers would not be covered by the bill's provisions. I don't believe the change goes nearly far enough in exempting vulnerable workers. But it is a move in the correct direction. The additional changes, again, as I understand them, we are just now seeing them, are minor. One change which we discussed, and which I had hoped we would have agreement on, concerned bankruptcy. I was prepared to offer an amendment in committee to ensure that workers with accumulated comptime would be able to collect on that earned compensation in case of employer bankruptcy. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] indicated that he hoped to address the problem. It is my understanding now that the majority does intend to fix that portion of the bill, although the problem is not addressed by the managers' amendment. I hope we can correct that flaw. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators on the floor. We are undoubtedly going to be back on this bill with plenty of opportunity for amendments and work on it, so I am going to try to be very brief in deference to a number of colleagues. I know my colleague from Texas has to leave very soon, and I see a colleague from Maine here. My disappointment is that the version of S. 4 that we see right now on the floor is a harsh version. It is not going to pass. It is going to go nowhere. I would really like to see us do some work together. We had several subcommittee hearings that I thought were productive. I thank my colleague, Senator DeWine from Ohio, for his leadership. We had a respectful markup. There was discussion in the markup, where amendments were voted down on a straight party vote, in which some of our colleagues appeared interested in modifications and ways of making this a better bill, changes that could bring people together--fixing the bill. That just has not happened. I know there is a managers' amendment. But a lot of concerns that have been raised just have not been spoken to. The House bill, remember, passed narrowly. That bill was a much more moderate version than this Senate bill. It did not have the 80-hour biweekly work period framework. It did not have the so-called flextime. It was a straight comptime bill. In my view, anything that essentially takes the Fair Labor Standards Act and turns it on its head is not going to go anywhere. That is what the 80-hour framework does. And flextime, which offers little to the employee, does the same thing. I don't believe that anything that is hour for hour as opposed to time and a half is going to go anywhere either. So I find it surprising and discouraging that we are discussing this particular version of this bill. It is not going to be enacted into law. I really wonder why we are debating it in its present form. I believe there is some work we can do on the bill. Maybe we can do it through amendments and come out of here with a piece of legislation that we can all get behind. But whatever the bill's press materials promise about it, the fact of the matter is that in its current form the bill turns the clock back half a century. It is simply not going to work. My colleague, for example, came to the floor and was angry about ads that have been run. This is the first time I heard what those ads have to say. But reading from the script of one of the ads, a portion of the voiceover says: Big business is moving to gut a law protecting our right to overtime pay. If they win, employers could pay workers with time off instead of money. That is true. That is absolutely true. In theory, you could say employees have a right to choose. But the reality of the pattern of power between employees and employers is that quite often employees do not have that power to choose. Then the ad says: They say the choice will be up to us. But there are no real safeguards to keep employers from pressuring workers to accept time off, or telling them when to take it. That also is true. I pointed out in subcommittee and in committee examples of ways in which overtime law is being violated right now. There is a backlog of complaints at the Department of Labor. Regardless of the theory of the bill, it could very well happen that coercion will take place. Finally, and I know my colleague from Missouri, whom I enjoy as a friend, was very worked up about this portion: You could work up to 40 additional hours a week before qualifying for overtime pay. That provision is not in the House version of comptime. But in theory, that is true of this Senate version. I don't think it would happen, but the fact of the matter is, when you go from a 40-hour week to an 80-hour biweekly timeframe, that is exactly what could happen. Somebody could work 80 hours one week and not work the next week at all, but for the 80 hours they worked for that first week, there would be no overtime pay for the hours worked over 40 hours. That could happen. That is true. I don't think it would happen. But there is a real danger here, if you don't limit the bill to comptime, of employers being in a situation--and they really do have the power most of the time--where they basically can say to employees: We are interested in the flextime option. We are interested in your working overtime 1 week and taking more time off the next week. But we are not interested in time and a half, premium compensation, which you would earn with comptime. Employers are in the driver's seat. The real problem is that the bill does not provide the flexibility that it purports to provide. That is a huge problem. There are two principles, and I am skipping over a lot of what I wanted to say. There are two basic principles at a minimum, I say to my colleague from Missouri, that will be required to make comptime work for employees and give them real flexibility. These should be the basis for the work we do together. First, it has to be truly voluntary. There has to be some language that puts more teeth into the voluntariness. Frankly, there is not right now. Second, employees must really get to use their accumulated comptime when they want and need to use it. That was the why of one of the amendments I introduced, which said we have the Family and Medical Leave Act. FMLA makes clear in which cases we let families take some time off, even though millions of people are not covered right now. In any case, this bill would be an opportunity to say to somebody with banked comptime: It's your time. You have earned it. If you have that time and now you need to take time off because you need to go to a PTA meeting or have an illnes in the family, or for that matter you are having problems at home and have been battered, where there are problems of domestic abuse and you need to take time off, you should be able to take that time off. There should not be any question about it. You have earned it as compensation for hours worked. It should not be up to the employer to decide whether you can use it if FMLA reasons exist. So I just want to make it clear that at the moment I do not see this as a Family Friendly Workplace Act. I do not see it as a Mother's Day present. It is not truly voluntary. We cannot change a piece of legislation that people have given their sweat, blood and tears for, which is what we are talking about when we talk about the Fair Labor Standards Act, unless you keep the integrity of it. We are not doing that here. So there are some huge problems. The bill is not truly voluntary, No. 1. It moves away from a 40-hour week. It sets up a 2-week, 80-hour framework. That is not in the House bill. I think that has to be out of the bill. It has a flextime option which is just hour for hour. In my view, if we want to get something passed here, we should be making it comptime and we should then say to people, look, we want to give you real choice and the flexibility of using that time when you want and need to use it. But I say to my colleagues that at this point in time, I don't know what the majority leader's intentions were, but I think it is fine to debate, it is fine to talk. It is not pointless, but this legislation is not going anywhere, not in its present form. I believe Senator DeWine is very committed to working out a compromise, and I believe my colleague from Missouri is also committed to a compromise. Maybe the strategy is to stake out an extreme position, with the idea that it helps for negotiating purposes. I don't mean to incur my colleagues' wrath--but I say to them, this is not a Mother's Day present, not in its present form. It is not a Family Friendly Workplace Act, not in its present form. However you package it, and however you try to market it, and however you try to advertise it, the fact of the matter is, you don't have the flexibility for the employee; you take the Fair Labor Standards Act and you turn it on its head. You go to an 80-hour framework and you should not. Then on comptime, you don't really make sure employees truly will have the choice, which is what I thought it was about. We had some amendments that lost on a straight party-line vote. So let's get rid of the extreme provisions of this legislation, let's talk about the comptime part. Let's talk about how a family, a woman or a man can have this choice between time and a half for overtime pay or time-and-a-half overtime for time needed to be with family. Let's make sure that employees have the flexibility to truly be able to make this choice, that it is not one sided and just for employers. Let's make sure that we really establish a kind of cooperative arrangement. But that is not what this bill does. I say with some disappointment to a good friend, I oppose it. I think that we will have a strong vote against it. I have to say, it is one of these situations--I promise my colleague from Texas, I will be done in 1 minute now, I know she wants to speak--but really Florence Reese wrote the song, ``Which Side Are You On?'' I heard my colleague from Missouri cite that lyric. I know it by heart because my wife is from Harlan County, KY. It is a great song. It was written during all the coal mining strikes. Of course, you know it's a strong union song. The fact of the matter is, when I look at the lineup of who is opposed to this bill, and I see all these unions and all these organizations that have fought for civil rights and human rights and for women over the years, I guess I do know who's side I am on. I am on the side of working people. This piece of legislation could be for working people, but in its present form, it is going nowhere. There are going to be Senators, and I certainly count myself as one of them, who will oppose this with everything we have, and I think we can stop it. I hope we get to the point of having some amendments, figuring out ways we can come together and pass a piece of legislation, but not in this form. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Chinese Government that the Chinese Government immediately release Wei Jingsheng, an extraordinary man who tells truth to power, authoritarian and arbitrary power. I meant to bring his book to the floor. It is being released today, May 13. Mr. President, the publication date of this book is today. The title of the book is ``Courage To Stand Alone.'' I have very limited time, but I just want to say on the floor of the Senate, because I really believe there ought to be a focus on Wei Jingsheng, that this is a man of tremendous courage. I have had a chance to skim-read the book. I am going to read it word for word. I know that Wei Jingsheng was in prison from 1979, I believe, until 1993. Then he was released, and then again he spoke out, as anyone should do, about the importance of freedom and democracy, and again he finds himself in prison. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will all help me in calling for his release. I know Senator Helms has signed this letter. So has Senator Kennedy. I am very pleased to work with both of those Senators, and, in addition, Senator Moynihan has signed this letter as well. We are going to add more and more signatures. We are talking about a man who is in very poor health. I just want to quote from Wei's outline of ``My Defense'' which was delivered at his trial on December 13, 1995. To sum up, the basic error of the indictment . . . is that it confounds the actions of defending human rights and promoting democracy and reform with ``conspiracy to subvert the government.'' Therefore, anything that can be linked to the ``Democracy Movement'' or ``human rights'' is an act of conspiracy and subversion. . . . A government that can be subverted by a movement of human rights and democracy can only be a government with a contradictory and opposite nature, a government that does not respect human rights or promote democracy, a government of ``feudal, fascist dictatorship.'' . . . According to our Constitution and laws, the people are the owner of this nation and the government is merely an agent of the people. The government must respect the sovereignty of the people, namely the individual freedoms and political rights of each citizen, including the right of people to know, the right to criticize and supervise the government, even to replace the government. If the government abolishes or suppresses such democratic rights, then it becomes an illegal government and loses its legitimacy, which is based on the Chinese Constitution. Therefore, if the general charges brought by the indictment against the human and democracy movement are valid, then the government it represents is not the legal Chinese Government and the charges it brings are illegal. Mr. President, these are words that might have been uttered by Thomas Jefferson. I again want to just rise in the Senate today and call on all of my colleagues to stand up for Wei Jingsheng, this extraordinary man. He has now been sentenced to 14 years in prison under austere conditions that threaten his life. Today is the publication of the book, ``Courage To Stand Alone.'' This is a collection of Wei's letters to Chinese leaders, prison officials, and to his family. He is a remarkable man, as I have said before. This is an extremely important work. He is eloquent. If you think about the conditions under which he has written these letters, it makes this all the more remarkable. It is not only urgent that the Chinese Government release Wei, but also that it provide him with the medical care that he desperately needs but has been denied. He has a heart disease that threatens his life, severe hypertension, and a serious back ailment that renders him unable to hold his head erect. The Chinese Government ought to release this courageous man. He is a prisoner of conscience. Today is the publication of a remarkable book, ``Courage to Stand Alone.'' Wei Jingsheng is a man who represents the very best of the tradition of our country. He is a man who has spoken up for human rights and democracy and has paid a terrible price for it. I believe it is important for all of us, regardless of political party, all of us in our country to speak up for prisoners of conscience. In this particular case, I take the Senate floor to call on the Chinese Government to release Wei Jingsheng from prison, to release him from prison today and to provide him with the medical care that he needs. Mr. President, again, I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. I hope my colleagues will have a chance to read this remarkable work, ``Courage To Stand Alone.'' I hope it becomes a best seller in the United States of America. In the 30 seconds I have left, let me just say, personally I do not know how people find the courage. If I lived in such a country and I thought that by speaking up I could wind up in prison, or even worse, that my children could be rounded up and that they could end up being tortured or they could end up being in prison, which so often happens in these countries headed by repressive governments, I do not think I could find the courage to speak up. I think it is time all of us in the U.S. Congress speak up for men and women like Wei Jingsheng who have had the courage to stand alone. I think it is extremely important that we do everything we can to call on the Chinese Government and to make it crystal clear to the Chinese Government that they ought to release this courageous man from prison, and other prisoners of conscience as well. If they do not do that, then I think all of us ought to look at trade relations and other relations with China and other countries that violate the basic human rights of their citizens. We need to exert leadership and we need to make a difference. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I have introduced the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997. The purpose of this bill is to help expedite the naturalization of Hmong veterans who served and fought alongside the United States during the United States secret war in Laos. This legislation acknowledges their service and officially recognizes the service of Hmong and other ethnic Lao veterans who sacrificed and loyally fought for America and its principles of freedom, human rights, and democracy. This legislation continues the tradition of recognizing the service of those who came to the aid of the United States in times of war. Current law permits aliens or noncitizens who served honorably in the U.S. military forces during wartime to be naturalized, regardless of age, period of U.S. residence, or physical presence in the United States. However, expedited naturalization does not apply to Hmong and Lao veterans and their families because of the covert status of their work. This bill would help expedite this process by eliminating the literacy requirement in the naturalization process. Classified studies conducted by the defense policy think tank RAND have recently been declassified. They show the unique and important role that the Hmong people played during the Vietnam war. The studies reveal that this group, the ``Secret Army,'' specially created by the United States Government, played a critical role in the clandestine military activities in Laos. Hmong men, women, and children of all ages fought and died alongside U.S. military personnel in units recruited, organized, trained, funded and paid by the U.S. Government. It is estimated that during the United States involvement in Vietnam, 35,000 to 40,000 Hmong veterans and their families' were killed in conflict. 50,000 to 58,000 were wounded in conflict and an additional 2,500 to 3,000 were declared missing. During the Vietnam conflict, Hmong forces were responsible for risking their lives by crossing enemy lines to rescue downed American pilots. It is estimated that they saved at least 60 American lives and often lost half their troops rescuing one soldier. When the United States withdrew from Southeast Asia, thousands of Hmong were evacuated by the U.S. Government. However, many were left behind and experienced mass genocide at the hands of Communists. Many fled to neighboring Thailand. During their journey, many were murdered before they reached the Thai border. Even today, despite official denial by the Lao Government, the Communist regime of Laos continues to persecute and discriminate against the Hmong specifically because of their role in the United States secret army. Edgar Buell, the senior U.S. CIA official who worked with the Hmong secret army, explained their critical role on national television: ``Everyone of them (Hmong) that died, that was an American back home that didn't die, or one that was injured that wasn't injured. Somebody in nearly every Hmong family was either fighting or died from fighting. They became refugees because we (the United States) encouraged them to fight for us. I promised myself: `` `Have no fear, we will take care of you.' '' It is now time to live up to earlier promises and take care of this group that so valiantly fought alongside American forces. We can only make good on our word by passing this legislation. Currently, many of the 45,000 former soldiers and their refugee family members living in the United States cannot become citizens because they lack the sufficient English language skills to pass the naturalization test. The intense and protracted war in Laos and the subsequent exodus of the Hmong veterans into squalid refugee camps did not permit these veterans the opportunity to attend school and learn English. Also, many suffer from injuries that occurred during the war that make learning difficult and frustrating. Because of the welfare and immigration reform bill enacted last Congress, aging, elderly, illiterate (in English), semiliterate and wounded soldiers--usually with large families--will suffer greatly because they are now facing the almost impossible task of immediately learning English and finding gainful employment. People like Chanh Chantalangsy are faced with an uncertain future: Chanh served in the secret army and was seriously wounded in his head, arm, and legs. After being in the hospital for 7 months, he returned to combat, serving in a CIA sponsored unit. Fleeing Laos, he spent 14 years in a refugee camp in Thailand. Realizing that the conditions in his country would not improve, Chanh left the refugee camp and came to the United States. He studied English for 5 years but it became evident that mental and physical injuries prevented him from learning English. In 1993, he was classified disabled and now receives $561 a month in SSI benefits. As of August, he could lose this small benefit. Given the unique role that the veterans served on behalf of the U.S. national security interests, we should waive the difficult naturalization requirements for this group. We have a responsibility to these people. This responsibility was supported by former CIA Director William Colby when he said to a House subcommittee: ``The basic burden (of fighting in Laos) was born by the Hmong. We certainly encouraged them to fight. We enabled them to fight in many cases, and I think the spirit that they developed was in part a result of our offering of support and our provision of it.'' Mr. President, it is now time to give our support. These people fought for our country for 15 years and came to the United States with an understanding that they would be cared for. One act of Congress, the welfare reform law, wiped out this understanding and threw the Hmong into a state of despair. They neither have the capacity to care for themselves if benefits are terminated, nor the ability to return to their homeland. I implore my colleagues to support one more act of Congress that would fulfill our pledge and our obligation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I have introduced the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997. The purpose of this bill is to help expedite the naturalization of Hmong veterans who served and fought alongside the United States during the United States secret war in Laos. This legislation acknowledges their service and officially recognizes the service of Hmong and other ethnic Lao veterans who sacrificed and loyally fought for America and its principles of freedom, human rights, and democracy. This legislation continues the tradition of recognizing the service of those who came to the aid of the United States in times of war. Current law permits aliens or noncitizens who served honorably in the U.S. military forces during wartime to be naturalized, regardless of age, period of U.S. residence, or physical presence in the United States. However, expedited naturalization does not apply to Hmong and Lao veterans and their families because of the covert status of their work. This bill would help expedite this process by eliminating the literacy requirement in the naturalization process. Classified studies conducted by the defense policy think tank RAND have recently been declassified. They show the unique and important role that the Hmong people played during the Vietnam war. The studies reveal that this group, the ``Secret Army,'' specially created by the United States Government, played a critical role in the clandestine military activities in Laos. Hmong men, women, and children of all ages fought and died alongside U.S. military personnel in units recruited, organized, trained, funded and paid by the U.S. Government. It is estimated that during the United States involvement in Vietnam, 35,000 to 40,000 Hmong veterans and their families' were killed in conflict. 50,000 to 58,000 were wounded in conflict and an additional 2,500 to 3,000 were declared missing. During the Vietnam conflict, Hmong forces were responsible for risking their lives by crossing enemy lines to rescue downed American pilots. It is estimated that they saved at least 60 American lives and often lost half their troops rescuing one soldier. When the United States withdrew from Southeast Asia, thousands of Hmong were evacuated by the U.S. Government. However, many were left behind and experienced mass genocide at the hands of Communists. Many fled to neighboring Thailand. During their journey, many were murdered before they reached the Thai border. Even today, despite official denial by the Lao Government, the Communist regime of Laos continues to persecute and discriminate against the Hmong specifically because of their role in the United States secret army. Edgar Buell, the senior U.S. CIA official who worked with the Hmong secret army, explained their critical role on national television: ``Everyone of them (Hmong) that died, that was an American back home that didn't die, or one that was injured that wasn't injured. Somebody in nearly every Hmong family was either fighting or died from fighting. They became refugees because we (the United States) encouraged them to fight for us. I promised myself: `` `Have no fear, we will take care of you.' '' It is now time to live up to earlier promises and take care of this group that so valiantly fought alongside American forces. We can only make good on our word by passing this legislation. Currently, many of the 45,000 former soldiers and their refugee family members living in the United States cannot become citizens because they lack the sufficient English language skills to pass the naturalization test. The intense and protracted war in Laos and the subsequent exodus of the Hmong veterans into squalid refugee camps did not permit these veterans the opportunity to attend school and learn English. Also, many suffer from injuries that occurred during the war that make learning difficult and frustrating. Because of the welfare and immigration reform bill enacted last Congress, aging, elderly, illiterate (in English), semiliterate and wounded soldiers--usually with large families--will suffer greatly because they are now facing the almost impossible task of immediately learning English and finding gainful employment. People like Chanh Chantalangsy are faced with an uncertain future: Chanh served in the secret army and was seriously wounded in his head, arm, and legs. After being in the hospital for 7 months, he returned to combat, serving in a CIA sponsored unit. Fleeing Laos, he spent 14 years in a refugee camp in Thailand. Realizing that the conditions in his country would not improve, Chanh left the refugee camp and came to the United States. He studied English for 5 years but it became evident that mental and physical injuries prevented him from learning English. In 1993, he was classified disabled and now receives $561 a month in SSI benefits. As of August, he could lose this small benefit. Given the unique role that the veterans served on behalf of the U.S. national security interests, we should waive the difficult naturalization requirements for this group. We have a responsibility to these people. This responsibility was supported by former CIA Director William Colby when he said to a House subcommittee: ``The basic burden (of fighting in Laos) was born by the Hmong. We certainly encouraged them to fight. We enabled them to fight in many cases, and I think the spirit that they developed was in part a result of our offering of support and our provision of it.'' Mr. President, it is now time to give our support. These people fought for our country for 15 years and came to the United States with an understanding that they would be cared for. One act of Congress, the welfare reform law, wiped out this understanding and threw the Hmong into a state of despair. They neither have the capacity to care for themselves if benefits are terminated, nor the ability to return to their homeland. I implore my colleagues to support one more act of Congress that would fulfill our pledge and our obligation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Texas, we will be ready for debate, and it will be a substantive debate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment is not in order because it is not germane post-cloture.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the pending amendment germane?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 672, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The President has now declared a major disaster for over 50 counties in the State of Minnesota, and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in areas hard hit by severe flooding, severe winter storms, snow melt, high winds, rain, and ice. This disaster assistance is urgently needed in my State and I want to thank Senators Stevens and Byrd for their work in getting this package through the Senate. While I intend to vote for this bill, I am very concerned about the ramifications of the McCain amendment, which triggers an automatic continuing resolution for fiscal year 1998 if Congress fails to pass appropriations bills. This disaster bill provides important assistance to Minnesotans struggling to rebuild their lives following an unprecedented natural disaster, and I think it is outrageous that we have used the emergency supplemental bill in this way. The continuing resolution will result in harsh cuts to important education and health programs. This is an uncaring and thoughtless way to proceed on the budget and it does not reflect the priorities and needs of the American people. The people of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota have suffered tremendous losses as a result of the devastating winter storms and 500- year spring floods. In Minnesota alone, over 20,000 people have been displaced from their homes, many of these families will not be able to return to their homes for weeks and months to come. The record flooding and cold temperatures have had a major economic impact on my State. From small businesses in East Grand Forks to dairy farmers who were unable to milk their herds or to transport milk. Where it is still very early in the process of assessing losses, the Federal Reserve Bank has already estimated that there has been a loss of over $1.2 billion in the Red River Valley alone. I want to congratulate Senators Stevens and Byrd for their commitment to get assistance out to disaster victims. I appreciate their commitment to continue to do all that we can to help families and businesses rebuild in the region. While this bill before us does not contain all the funding that the region will need to rebuild from the unbelievable losses caused by flooding and winter storms, it does provide the first installment of assistance. The emergency supplemental contains critical funding for the region, including $500 million in community development block grant funding, over $900 million in disaster assistance under FEMA, $54.7 million for EDA, and additional funding for transportation losses due to flooding and severe winter weather. The State of Minnesota learned in the 1993 that CDBG funding is one of the best vehicles to get assistance into the communities for rebuilding homes and businesses and for flood mitigation projects. I am glad that we were able to secure this additional CDBG assistance and the assurances from Senators Stevens and Byrd that they will support this funding level in conference. In addition, this bill contains a provision to require the administration to release $45 million in emergency contingency funding under the LIHEAP program for emergency energy needs of flood victims. As families begin to return to their homes in Ada, Breckenridge, Warren, and East Grand Forks, they will need this assistance to replace their heating systems. With this funding thousands of families will be able to return to their homes and do the hard work of cleaning up. Finally, I want to acknowledge the tremendous volunteer effort that continues in my State. On my visits to the Minnesota and Red River Valleys, I was touched by the sense of community among the residents. Many folks didn't care who they were working next to, as long as they were working for the common good. People worked tirelessly to build dikes to try to save homes and businesses and are now working tirelessly to help flood victims begin to clean their homes, schools, and businesses. In particular, I want to send a special word of thanks to all the high school students who volunteered on the frontlines. In the weeks and months ahead there will be many more hours of hard work; cleanup, removal of sandbags, restoration of buildings, ensuring that water supplies are not contaminated. People need not only the support of their neighbors, they need the support that only the Federal Government can provide. I am pleased that the Senate has acted and is now approving this package of much needed disaster assistance. With this funding, the flooded communities and families can begin to rebuild their towns, their businesses, and their lives. dual-use applications program

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if my colleague will just yield for one other question, another concern, and then I will leave the floor and let him conclude. I wonder whether the Senator from Wisconsin would agree with me that--I mean, in, oh, so many ways--what we see happening in the country is every election year we see cited the figures: People spend more and more money in the campaigns and fewer and fewer people participate. People are really losing heart. I have said before that I do not see it as corruption as in the wrongdoing of individual officeholders. But I see systemic corruption, where these campaigns have become TV-intensive, relying on huge amounts of money and, therefore, you have this huge imbalance of influence and power where too few people give way too much of the money that is given, and are given access and influence, and too many people are left out of the loop. This becomes a real problem for a representative democracy because it is not true any longer that each person counts as one and only one. So I ask my colleague whether he would agree that it is going to be important, not just for us to speak 20 minutes a day, but now for us to begin to get together? I ask him whether, as a leader in this effort-- and he has been a leader of this effort --whether we might really be reaching out to other colleagues who feel very strongly about this, who really want people in our country to believe in the political process-- all of us should want to change this--and get some people together and come out on the floor of the Senate? We are going to keep framing this issue and we are going to keep calling for reform and we are going to make it crystal clear that we are not going to let the Senate, or the Congress, become a politics of diversion on this. It is fine to identify problems. If some people want to say we do not have disclosure, fine. If some people want to say it is influence of foreign money, fine. If some people want to say it is just the rules that have been broken and no more than that, fine. But the people in the country know too much money is spent, there is too much special access, there is too much time spent raising money, and we have to build the McCain-Feingold bill that is out there. We want to move that forward and we want to eventually have an up-or-down vote. Does my colleague agree that we need to start turning up the heat?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will allow me to share a concern with him and get his response. Let me tell you what my worry is. I do not have any doubt that people in the country know that too much money is spent, that they know there is too much special interest access, that they know all of us spend too much time raising money. I have no doubt that people understand that. As a matter of fact, I think one of the things that is making it more and more difficult for people to get involved at the grassroots level is when they see these huge amounts of money contributed by some folks and some interests and then they get a letter: We would like you to make a $10 contribution and be involved in our grassroots effort. They are a little cynical, and they figure: Come on, give us a break; we know the people who are most involved in this process. It is not us and our family. This is the core issue for a representative democracy. But my concern is that the Rules Committee starts next week, and there will be an effort, as I have at least looked at a preliminary list of witnesses-- not to talk about any particular witness--there is going to be a pretty strong effort on the part of the Rules Committee, which I have called in the Chamber of the Senate, a merry-go-round for reform, to basically frame this issue and the issue will be not enough money is spent; all we need is disclosure so that we can make people realize how bad it is, without doing anything to make it better. As I look at the ways in which the Rules Committee moves forward starting next week, I see the beginning of the debate. I see the beginning of the debate. So I say to my colleague, will he agree with me that it is going to be important for those of us who are committed to reform, Democrats and Republicans--and there is a pretty significant group--to start coming out on the floor? We will figure out the vehicles, and it is not necessarily amendments, but there are always ways of speaking. Should we not now every week be out here framing this issue and over and over again saying what are going to be the solutions to these problems and are we or are we not going to take action in this Congress?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was listening to my colleague from Wisconsin, and I thank him for leading this reform effort, in fact I thank Senator McCain and other Senators as well. I know the Presiding Officer has done a lot of work and has spoken out about trying to really reduce the role of big money in politics. The question I ask my colleague has to do with this whole issue of incumbents and challengers. It has been said sometimes that the debate about campaign finance reform is really less a debate between Democrats and Republicans and all too often is more a debate between ins and outs; that, if anything, part of the inertia here and the slowness to embrace reform and the fierce opposition has to do with the fact that right now the system is really wild for those people who are in office. My question for my colleague is does he feel some sense of urgency and will he consider coming to the floor every week now with other colleagues--the two of us are sort of getting started. There are a number of Senators who feel very strongly that this is a core issue, the influence of money in politics, and the most important thing we could ever do would be to pass a significant reform measure. Is my colleague from Wisconsin beginning to feel as though it is really going to be important that every week from now on for Democrats and Republicans who are serious about reform to be out on the floor and beginning to frame the issues, especially focusing on what are going to be the solutions?