Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing the Afghanistan Freedom and Reconstruction Act of 2001. This legislation is a comprehensive framework for U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance for the humanitarian relief and long-term reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. It is a companion to H.R. 3427, introduced by Representatives Lantos and Ackerman in the House. The last pockets of Taliban resistance are being routed, and the new interim administration of Afghanistan is set to assume power in Kabul in 2 days. Freedom is returning to Afghanistan. Its men and women are listening to music again and women are leaving their homes unescorted, cautiously optimistic about their future after enduring years of repressive rule. Now is the time for decisive action by Congress and by the administration to demonstrate to the people of Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world that the war against the al-Qaida and the Taliban was neither a war against Muslims, nor against ordinary Afghans. The United States has led the effort to eliminate the terrorist network in Afghanistan, and now it must lead the peace effort by helping the Afghan people reclaim their country and rebuild their lives. The United States did not live up to its commitment to the Afghan people after the Soviets were defeated in the 1980s. I regret to say we walked away. If we break or commitment again, Afghanistan is likely to remain an isolated incubator of terrorist activities, and regional instability will continue. We would not now be focused on Afghanistan had the events of September 11 not occurred. Those horrific events have driven home the truth that the indivisibility of human security is not just an empty slogan, but a fact, which we ignore at our peril. The causes of the Afghan tragedy include nearly all the horrors that stalk failed states: meddling and invasion by neighboring states, internecine warfare leading to a takeover by brutal fanatics, oppression of a majority of the population, especially women and, finally, the Taliban's fateful decision to host international terrorists. The cures for Afghanistan's agony are less obvious, but one is clear. The rival political and ethnic groups must take advantage of the historic opportunity that emerged in Bonn and make a genuine commitment to the peaceful sharing of power. They must establish a government broad and effective enough to meet the basic needs of the people. The same narrow-minded factionalism that originally left the country vulnerable to backward mullahs, greedy warlords and predatory neighbors continues to pose a threat to the country now. One other thing is clear: the United States must lead the international community in moving quickly and decisively in a long-term commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have endured 23 years of war and misery. The conflict has threatened international stability and placed enormous burdens on the people's limited means. The Bush administration has said that it will not let Afghanistan descend into chaos. But, talk is not enough. We must act by committing significant resources. We must show Afghans that our commitments are not hollow. We must show genuine solidarity and real generosity now. It is time to reverse more than a decade of neglect. The United States, in partnership with the international community, must be willing to make a multi-year, multinational effort to rebuild Afghanistan. Current estimates of the cost of assisting Afghanistan range from $5 billion over 5 years to $40 billion over a decade. The United States should be the lead financial contributor to the rehabilitation and reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, and we believe should contribute as much as $5 billion to this effort over the next 5 years. The reconstruction effort must focus on education, particularly for girls, which has proven to give the greatest return for each assistance dollar. Creation of secular schools will help break the stranglehold of extremism and allow both boys and girls to make positive contributions to the development of their society. The effort must also focus on rebuilding basic infrastructure, repairing shattered bridges and roads, removing land mines, reconstructing irrigation systems and drilling wells. We must also rebuild the health infrastructure by establishing basic hospitals and village clinics. Over the past few months, I have held a series of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asia Affairs regarding the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of Afghanistan. Based on these hearings, I am convinced we must help the Afghan people live in a society where they can feed their children, live in safety and participate fully in their country's development regardless of gender, religious belief or ethnicity. The Afghan Freedom and Reconstruction Act of 2001 does just that. That bill: Expresses a sense of Congress on the U.S. policy towards Afghanistan, including promoting its independence, supporting a broad-based, multi- ethnic, gender-inclusive, fully representative government, and maintaining a significant U.S. commitment to the relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Authorizes $400 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in fiscal year 03, including $75m for refugee assistance and $175m for food aid. Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for a multinational security force in Afghanistan, in fiscal year 02 and fiscal year 03. Authorizes $1.175 billion for rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance for fiscal years 2002-2006, to be distributed by USAID, with conditions for each year to ensure that benchmarks laid out in the December 5, 2001, Bonn Agreement between the various Afghan factions are being met; assistance for agriculture, health care, education, vocational training, disarmament and demobilization, and anticorruption and good governance programs; a special emphasis on assistance to women and girls; a report on assistance actually provided; and authority to provide some of this assistance through a multilateral fund and/or international foundation. Authorizes the President to furnish such sums as may be necessary to finance a multilateral fund or international foundation, to assist in security, rehabilitation, and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, as described above. Authorizes $60 million for Democracy and human rights initiatives for FY02 through FY04. Authorizes $62.5 for a contribution to the U.N. Drug Control Program for FY02 through FY04 to reduce or eliminate the trafficking of illicit drugs in Afghanistan. Authorizes $65 million for a new secure diplomatic facility in Afghanistan. The legislation's message is simple: the United States is not only a great Nation, but a generous Nation. We keep our word, and stand ready to match our words with our actions. We must not turn our backs again on the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators DeWine, Dayton, Specter, Mukulski and Bayh the ``Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Amendments of 2001.'' These amendments to the Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 are designed to make the loan guarantee program more accessible to companies in urgent need of assistance as they attempt to recover from the devastating impacts of enormous, unfair import surges, as well as the effects of the current recession. A strong domestic steel industry is essential to our national security. To ensure the continuing viability of this critical industry and to deal with the current crisis, we must act quickly, and we must act comprehensively. First, the Administration must provide immediate and decisive strong relief in the pending Section 201 steel import surge investigation. That relief needs to include substantial tariffs as well as quotas. Second, we need a formula for industry-wide sharing of the huge retiree health-care cost burdens resulting from the massive layoffs during the 1970's and 1980's. We must protect retirees health care needs without undermining the ability of companies attempting to compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace. Several colleagues and I have previously introduced legislation to accomplish this, and we have urged the Administration to support us in this effort as past of a comprehensive solution to the steel crisis we face today. Finally, companies urgently need access to capital to sustain their operations. This is precisely what the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 was designed to insure. The tireless efforts and foresight of Senator Byrd led to the creation of the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board in 1999, but since then massive import surges, the current economic downturn and apparently overly-restrictive interpretations of the Board's authority have made it all but impossible for struggling steel firms to meet the Board's eligibility criteria. The bill we introduce today is designed to address these concerns. It provides the Board with the necessary flexibility to provide these essential loan guarantees. In particular, the bill would do the following: 1. Clarify that a company that has placed its facilities on ``hot idle status'' is eligible to receive a loan guarantee. 2. Increase the amount of loans guaranteed with respect to a single qualified steel company to $350,000,000. 3. Permit the Steel Loan Guarantee Board to guarantee a loan where there is a fair likelihood of repayment, assuming vigorous and timely enforcement of our trade laws and general economic prosperity. 4. Provide flexibility to the Board in structuring security arrangements to maximize participation of lenders. 5. Expand the scope of lenders permitted to participate in a loan subject to the guarantee to include public and private institutions, including the company's existing lenders. 6. Require the Board to adopt form of guarantee regulations no less favorable than those used in other government programs, including the Export-Import bank. 7. Include as a requirement for loan guarantees that the company's business plan maximize both retention of jobs and capacity consistent with the long- term economic viability of the company. 8. Increase the loan guarantee level for all loans to 95 percent. The recent economic conditions facing the U.s. iron ore and steel industry are of particular concern in Minnesota. We are extremely proud of our State's history as the Nation's largest producer of iron ore. The taconite mines on the Iron Range in Minnesota and in our sister State of Michigan have provided key raw materials to the Nation's steel producers for over a century. You will not find a harder-working, more committed group of workers anywhere in this country than you find in the iron ore and taconite industry. This is a group of people who work under the toughest of conditions, are absolutely committed to their families, and who now face dire circumstances, through no fault of their own. Unfairly traded iron ore, semi-finished steel and finished steel products are taking their jobs. Earlier this year, LTV Steel Mining Company halted production at its Hoyt Lakes, MN mine, leaving 1,400 workers out of good paying jobs and affecting nearly 5,000 additional workers. We need to act and we need to act now. Workers in the steel, iron ore and taconite industries want nothing more than the chance to do their jobs. The bill we introduce today is one part of the answer. I urge my colleagues to join with me in moving this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing the Afghanistan Freedom and Reconstruction Act of 2001. This legislation is a comprehensive framework for U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance for the humanitarian relief and long-term reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. It is a companion to H.R. 3427, introduced by Representatives Lantos and Ackerman in the House. The last pockets of Taliban resistance are being routed, and the new interim administration of Afghanistan is set to assume power in Kabul in 2 days. Freedom is returning to Afghanistan. Its men and women are listening to music again and women are leaving their homes unescorted, cautiously optimistic about their future after enduring years of repressive rule. Now is the time for decisive action by Congress and by the administration to demonstrate to the people of Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world that the war against the al-Qaida and the Taliban was neither a war against Muslims, nor against ordinary Afghans. The United States has led the effort to eliminate the terrorist network in Afghanistan, and now it must lead the peace effort by helping the Afghan people reclaim their country and rebuild their lives. The United States did not live up to its commitment to the Afghan people after the Soviets were defeated in the 1980s. I regret to say we walked away. If we break or commitment again, Afghanistan is likely to remain an isolated incubator of terrorist activities, and regional instability will continue. We would not now be focused on Afghanistan had the events of September 11 not occurred. Those horrific events have driven home the truth that the indivisibility of human security is not just an empty slogan, but a fact, which we ignore at our peril. The causes of the Afghan tragedy include nearly all the horrors that stalk failed states: meddling and invasion by neighboring states, internecine warfare leading to a takeover by brutal fanatics, oppression of a majority of the population, especially women and, finally, the Taliban's fateful decision to host international terrorists. The cures for Afghanistan's agony are less obvious, but one is clear. The rival political and ethnic groups must take advantage of the historic opportunity that emerged in Bonn and make a genuine commitment to the peaceful sharing of power. They must establish a government broad and effective enough to meet the basic needs of the people. The same narrow-minded factionalism that originally left the country vulnerable to backward mullahs, greedy warlords and predatory neighbors continues to pose a threat to the country now. One other thing is clear: the United States must lead the international community in moving quickly and decisively in a long-term commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have endured 23 years of war and misery. The conflict has threatened international stability and placed enormous burdens on the people's limited means. The Bush administration has said that it will not let Afghanistan descend into chaos. But, talk is not enough. We must act by committing significant resources. We must show Afghans that our commitments are not hollow. We must show genuine solidarity and real generosity now. It is time to reverse more than a decade of neglect. The United States, in partnership with the international community, must be willing to make a multi-year, multinational effort to rebuild Afghanistan. Current estimates of the cost of assisting Afghanistan range from $5 billion over 5 years to $40 billion over a decade. The United States should be the lead financial contributor to the rehabilitation and reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, and we believe should contribute as much as $5 billion to this effort over the next 5 years. The reconstruction effort must focus on education, particularly for girls, which has proven to give the greatest return for each assistance dollar. Creation of secular schools will help break the stranglehold of extremism and allow both boys and girls to make positive contributions to the development of their society. The effort must also focus on rebuilding basic infrastructure, repairing shattered bridges and roads, removing land mines, reconstructing irrigation systems and drilling wells. We must also rebuild the health infrastructure by establishing basic hospitals and village clinics. Over the past few months, I have held a series of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asia Affairs regarding the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of Afghanistan. Based on these hearings, I am convinced we must help the Afghan people live in a society where they can feed their children, live in safety and participate fully in their country's development regardless of gender, religious belief or ethnicity. The Afghan Freedom and Reconstruction Act of 2001 does just that. That bill: Expresses a sense of Congress on the U.S. policy towards Afghanistan, including promoting its independence, supporting a broad-based, multi- ethnic, gender-inclusive, fully representative government, and maintaining a significant U.S. commitment to the relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Authorizes $400 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in fiscal year 03, including $75m for refugee assistance and $175m for food aid. Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for a multinational security force in Afghanistan, in fiscal year 02 and fiscal year 03. Authorizes $1.175 billion for rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance for fiscal years 2002-2006, to be distributed by USAID, with conditions for each year to ensure that benchmarks laid out in the December 5, 2001, Bonn Agreement between the various Afghan factions are being met; assistance for agriculture, health care, education, vocational training, disarmament and demobilization, and anticorruption and good governance programs; a special emphasis on assistance to women and girls; a report on assistance actually provided; and authority to provide some of this assistance through a multilateral fund and/or international foundation. Authorizes the President to furnish such sums as may be necessary to finance a multilateral fund or international foundation, to assist in security, rehabilitation, and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, as described above. Authorizes $60 million for Democracy and human rights initiatives for FY02 through FY04. Authorizes $62.5 for a contribution to the U.N. Drug Control Program for FY02 through FY04 to reduce or eliminate the trafficking of illicit drugs in Afghanistan. Authorizes $65 million for a new secure diplomatic facility in Afghanistan. The legislation's message is simple: the United States is not only a great Nation, but a generous Nation. We keep our word, and stand ready to match our words with our actions. We must not turn our backs again on the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Gerrity, of my staff, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time is there?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Let me thank both my colleagues for different reasons. First of all, I thank Senator Harkin, who I think has done a yeoman job of reporting not a perfect bill but a good bill out of the Agriculture Committee and bringing together a lot of different people representing a lot of different viewpoints with a unanimous vote on all of the provisions of the bill except the commodity provision. I thank Senator Lugar for his typical graciousness and civility. Let me add that the differences I have with him are not ever personal but more a matter of policy. These are the facts as I see them. When Senator Lugar talked about too much AMTA payments being inverse in relationship to need, I quite agree with him. But I see a good part of that as being the outgrowth of the failed ``freedom to fail'' bill and the AMTA payments that have gone out to people. I can't think of a more failed farm policy, I say for all of my colleagues who supported that bill. There are many who filibustered this bill and supported what was called the Freedom to Farm bill--what we call the ``freedom to fail'' bill. Essentially what has happened, because it was such a miserable failure, is we now have farmers and agriculture in a large part of rural Minnesota and rural America dependent on these Government payments. Quite frankly, these AMTA payments especially are inverse in relationship to need. There is no question about it. Farmers in our State--livestock producers, corn growers, wheat growers, and dairy farmers--hate being dependent on the Government checks. I think what is going on here is as follows: This administration's definition of a good farm bill is low loan rates and low prices for family farmers. It is that simple. As a matter of fact, in the substitute Senator Hutchinson presented today, the House bill actually would enable the Secretary of Agriculture to lower the loan rates from where they are right now. There is a lot of arcane language that goes with agricultural policy. But basically what we are talking about is a way in which farmers have some negotiating power vis-a-vis grain companies, or other exporters, with the loan rates so they can get a better price. When they get the better price, they do not have to take out any loans. The Government doesn't pay them any money. If I had my way, if Senator Dayton had his way, and if other farmers had their way, we would have had a Grassley-Dorgan amendment which would have made this more targeted. We would raise the loan rate. Let us be clear about this. What is at issue is that this administration's definition of a good farm bill is low prices for family farmers. They want the loan rate down. For the large conglomerates--be they the grain traders or other exporters--low prices are great. They pay the independent producers low prices, they export, and they make a big profit. That is what this is about. I was the last to join the Agriculture Committee. I was so hopeful that we would write a new farm bill. It is not just strategy here in the Senate, or strategy here in Washington DC; it is a lot of people who are being spat out of the economy--broken lives, broken dreams, broken families. All family farmers say: That is what I care about. Frankly, my passion isn't for all of the food industry. I am not worried about Tyson Foods or IDP. I am not worried about the big grain companies. They do fine. The part of agriculture or the food industry for which I have the passion is the family farmers--the people who not only live the land but work the land, and who are basically saying: We want to have a living wage. We want to have a price whereby we can make a little bit of profit based on our hard work so that we can support our families and live in the part of Minnesota and America that we love--rural America and rural Minnesota. I am not a farmer. But in an odd way, when we moved to Northfield, MN, in 1969, I started organizing with farmers. I have been organizing with farmers now for almost 30 years. If there is one thing I advocate for, it is for trying to make sure farmers have some leverage to get a decent price. We had rural economic development provisions in this bill. We had energy provisions in this bill. We had good conservation measures in this bill. We had food nutrition in this bill, which wasn't as strong as Senator Lugar would like or that I would like, but much better than the House bill. A number of us had amendments ready that we thought would have strengthened it. In addition, it was not perfect, but the effective target price, loan rate, with some additional assistance, would have provided some real help to family farmers--not as in you are directly now dependent upon all Government payments, but as in you are going to have a chance to get a better price in the marketplace.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Minnesota, no. I think the reason for it is, if this bill had passed, it would have been an increase of net farm income of $3 billion a year over the next 10 years. We need that in farm country. I have never seen the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union so united. I cannot believe that Senators actually voted to block this bill, obstruct this bill from passing.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Minnesota, no. I think Senator Harkin made such an effort to reach out that he would infuriate some of us on the committee. He really went out of his way to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle. The proof of that, again, is that every provision in the bill--except for one--was passed with a unanimous vote. It was a good markup. It was substantive. I think Senator Lugar had a lot to do with that as well. I think Senator Harkin did everything he could to make this bill a bipartisan bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I agree with my colleague. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is a piece in the New York Times today, the business section, ``LTV Seems on the Verge of a Shutdown,'' subtitled ``Without Loan, Steel Giant Could End Its Labor Contract Today.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will read a paragraph: LTV's workers are laboring fiercely to pull off an 11th- hour rescue, but their prospects are dim. Their union is hoping for a $250 million loan backed by the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board, an arm of the Commerce Department. ``We're going to fight like hell to get this loan, and fight like hell to save this company,'' said Leo Gerard, international president of the steelworkers union. Mr. President, I along with other Senators who try to represent workers and working families and steelworkers, have written a letter to this Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board in the Commerce Department asking them to grant this loan. On the Senate floor today, I wish to associate myself with President Gerard's comments. If there is any vehicle--we are down to the wire here--if there is an economic stimulus package or economic recovery package, I will have an amendment which will give that loan board better authorizing language to make it clear that, indeed, this is their mandate to guarantee just these kinds of loans. I don't know whether or not we are going to have that package. That is being negotiated. I have also made it clear that I think if there is any other bill that passes through in terms of providing relief for this sector of the economy or that sector, that from my point of view there also has to be an amendment which represents relief for those people who are flat on their back, out of work, without unemployment insurance any longer, without health care coverage or soon to be without coverage, or to help these steelworkers. I wanted to cite this article because I am sure President Gerard and the steelworkers sometimes think they are shouting in the wind, that they are not being heard. Industrial work is being spit out of the economy. LTV shut down. At the taconite plant in the Iron Range of Minnesota, 1,400 workers are out of work. I went with them the day the local president called everybody together to tell them it was over. And I got really mixed advice about whether to go because people said, if you are there, like a politician, people are just going to turn on you because they are so angry about losing their jobs. They didn't do that. People appreciate the fact you go up and you are with people, especially in these times. But the fact is, not just for the sake of these workers who want nothing more but to work, but for financial security as well, we ought to pay attention to what has happened in the steel industry. We should pay attention to what is happening to certain vital sectors of the economy. Again, just so President Gerard and the International Steelworkers Union don't think there aren't Senators who support them, I know others do as well. Senator Rockefeller has been at this a long time. This was Senator Byrd's original idea. This Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board of the Commerce Department can do this. This is their mission and mandate. They can say: We guarantee this loan. So far they have not done so. I wish we could rush through some additional language to make it clear this is their mission and mandate. We may not be able to do so. But they ought to go forward with this loan. If they don't, the consequences are going to be very harsh. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. His proposal sounds very interesting and very important. I look forward to looking at the specifics of it. I appreciate his words. I appreciate what he is talking about. It may be legislation that provides people with that temporary assistance because people want to get the jobs on which they can support their families. I think it is an important endeavor. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. His proposal sounds very interesting and very important. I look forward to looking at the specifics of it. I appreciate his words. I appreciate what he is talking about. It may be legislation that provides people with that temporary assistance because people want to get the jobs on which they can support their families. I think it is an important endeavor. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 19, 2001, immediately following the 1:15 p.m. cloture vote, to conduct a markup on the nominations of Ms. Vickers B. Meadows, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and Ms. Diane L. Tomb, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 19, 2001, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Edward Kingman, Jr. to be Assistant Secretary for Management Budget and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Treasury.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Since the Senator speaks with such indignation, I am pleased to offer an explanation. First of all, it is not about me; it is about other colleagues who want to speak. Yesterday, we had an understanding for 2 hours and a half hour--or 1 hour and a half hour. Then there was a unanimous consent yesterday to extend an additional hour for the proponents. I asked the majority whip whether we could have more time for other Senators to speak, and my understanding is that that is fine on our side, but the Republicans have turned that proposal down, in which case, Senator, I stand by my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator this. There were several other Senators who wanted to speak in opposition. The Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, is one.

Mr. WELLSTONE. All together I have how much time left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think the Senator from Minnesota is next.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my friend, I thought we were taking a viewpoint on----

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have made my point. I will say to colleagues that I am amazed that Senators don't want to have a little more debate on this. What is the problem? There are people who want to speak against it, too. I am just amazed that apparently my colleagues on the Republican side, I gather, are opposed to this. They don't want to have more debate. I don't blame you because a lot of people in our States are going to feel quite betrayed.