Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. One other question I have is, there is no disclosure and there is not even any disclosure requirement, is my understanding.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? After listening to him lay out this week, is the Senator sure he wants to stay with his position? It sounds pretty good.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, $36,500; but that is a conservative estimate. Playing this out----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President we are now, I take it, back on the bill?

Mr. WELLSTONE. So the minimum from one lobbyist per year could be 35----

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is the strictest interpretation of what we have in the McConnell-Dole initiative. I say to my colleague from Wisconsin that I would view this not as a great step forward but a great leap backward.

Mr. WELLSTONE. So actually we do not even have a $36,500 limit.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The $100 adds up to $36,500 a year.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me go on and engage in a discussion with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, about what is at issue here. S. 101 is the comprehensive gift ban measure. By the way, Mr. President, 88 Senators--the Senator from Tennessee would be excluded because he was not in the Senate or the House last Congress--but 88 Senators voted for exactly S. 101, this comprehensive gift ban initiative. Again, I say to my colleague, it is extremely important in terms of the public, in terms of our connection with the people we represent, that people hold strong with this position. One of features of S. 101 on the gift ban is that we simply say when it comes to lobbying--let us just talk about that--there are just no gifts, period. We have a $20 minimum. The McConnell initiative allows lobbyists to give Members an unlimited number of gifts up to $100 each. As it turns out, I thought at one point in time that this meant every day a lobbyist could take the Senator from Wisconsin or the Senator from Tennessee or the Senator from Minnesota out for a meal here in Washington, dinner in Washington, or a ticket to an Orioles game, or whatever the case might be, and that every single day, as long as it was up to $100, it could be done in perpetuity because there is not even an aggregate limit. Now, as it turns out, it is per occasion--breakfast, lunch, dinner, much less all sorts of things per occasion. Lobbyists can give us gifts as long as it is under $100, and there is no aggregate limit.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a discussion the Senator and I choose to have now, possibly tonight, and then I would imagine through tomorrow as well. We will be involved in I think a major debate about the gift ban reform effort. I thought that the Senator from Wisconsin and I might talk a little bit about what is at issue here. I will start out for a few moments, and then we will go back and forth. I have some questions which I want to put to the Senator, and I think he has some questions he wants to put to me as well. Mr. President, just to be crystal clear, there is no question in my mind that people in the country really, as I have said before, yearn for a political process that they can believe in, one that really is accountable, that is open, and that has real integrity. We have been working on a gift ban. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin how long we have been working on this comprehensive gift ban legislation with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Levin.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me go on to say to my colleague that we have become close friends. We come from a similar part of the country, and we come from reform-minded States. It is interesting. I became interested in this initiative because shortly after I had been elected, I was on a plane. A guy came up to me, without using any names, by the way. I will not for a moment say there was anything about the conversation that I would call corrupt. But he came up to me and asked me whether I liked athletics. I said, ``I love athletics. My children and I have been involved in athletics, and Sheila and I just love it.'' He said, ``Senator, we would be very pleased for you to have tickets. We represent a certain industry, and we have tickets for all sorts of different games,'' and everything else. I thanked him. Then I sat down and started thinking to myself. I was a college teacher for 20 years. I had been on this plane, you know, a few times and nobody had ever come up to me and asked that point. I thought, What is it that has changed? It must be the institutional position.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we have about used up our time. Let me just close this way. The New York Times--I do not know if my colleague saw this--on Saturday had an editorial called ``Republican Gift Fraud.'' And quite frankly--and we have not even begun to look at the Republican proposal, or at least the McConnell proposal--there are enough loopholes in here to drive huge trucks through. I think it is very dangerous to call something reform which in fact maintains this current practice of enabling lobbyists and other professional interests to give us gifts, gifts that we receive and take. I do not think that will do a thing to restore public confidence in the process, and in fact I think people will be furious to not see this practice ended.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I agree. Let me conclude with an editorial today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, a paper that both of us in Wisconsin and Minnesota receive. The last paragraph reads as follows: The comprehensive gift ban may cramp some Senators' style, but it is an important step in restoring public confidence. The current climate about politics and its practitioners says the Senate must prove it is not for sale, one Member at a time, to special interests that provide seats on the 50-yard line and winter break in the tropics. That is stated quite directly. I think the Pioneer Press speaks for the vast majority of people in the country. Some of it may be perception. I do not always assume because people take gifts that that leads to some sort of awful private deals that take place between lobbyists and Senators. I do not make that assumption at all. But I say to my colleagues, it is time to let go of these perks. It is time to let go of these privileges. It is time to no longer take these gifts. It is time to no longer have lobbyists pay for vacations for ourselves and our spouses, and we ought to end this. It is time to restore some confidence on the part of the people we represent in this political process. A lot of our colleagues think that we are the only ones interested in these issues. That is not true. People in the country care fiercely about this. I hope in the next couple of days that there will be lobbying disclosure reform, gift ban reform--maybe there will be give and take, I say to my colleague. Maybe we will come together around some initiatives that will not be everything we want, but I do not think either one of us or any of us who have worked on gift ban are going to accept a proposal that does not meet the test of representing significant reform. Then eventually--and I thank my colleague for his work on this--we will get to campaign finance reform. When we reform this political process, we will be dealing with the root issue, and the root issue is many, many people in the United States of America have lost confidence in the Nation's Capitol. They do not believe this Capitol belongs to them. By God, we have to make sure it does--we have to make sure not only they believe it, but that that is the case, this Capitol belongs to them. This is only one step in that direction, but it is an important one. I hope all of our colleagues will support comprehensive gift ban reform. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin makes an interesting point. I am a little embarrassed that I did not make this point earlier, which is that you talk to many of the lobbyists and they say they would be pleased to see this pass. So in a way, this comprehensive gift ban proposal--I said comprehensive, S. 101 we have been working on. I did not say the alternative, the McConnell-Dole alternative, which frankly does not pass the credibility test. It is not comprehensive. It is not strict and it does not put an end to this practice. I think people will be very angry with it, and therefore I hope actually in the next 2 days we will have reached some agreement that all of us can pass something of which we are proud. Otherwise, it would be a gigantic debate. If I could just make one additional point, I think this comprehensive gift ban proposal is important, first of all, for the public so they can have more confidence in our process, for all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, and for the lobbyists. And I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, for me the issue has never been the wrongdoing of an individual office holder. I am glad the Senator put it the way he did. I am not interested in some of these exposes--this, that and the other --which I think kind of miss the mark. I do not see--and I hope I am right--the wrongdoing of a lot of individual office holders, but I think there is a more serious problem and it is systemic. What this is all about, this comprehensive gift ban proposal is all about, is the fact that some people have too much access. They have too much say over what we do in the Senate and too many people in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Tennessee and Michigan are left out of the loop. People do not like that. They do not feel well represented. They do not like the idea that certain lobbyists and special interests that those lobbyists represent have so much clout here and they are left out. That is another reason why I think we have to pass a tough comprehensive gift ban reform. Would my colleague agree that there is campaign finance, there is lobbying disclosure, and there is gift ban-- all of these reform measures are almost more important than each of them singularly?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin that if we want to as Senators support different charities, I think it is important we be there at these events. I think there is a way in which Senators, Democrats, and Republicans alike, have an important role to play. But the point is we should do that on our own expense. If we care enough about those charities, then we pay our own way. I think that is the point. We do not need to have lobbyists paying our way, in which case then it becomes another big loophole. It seems to me, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin--I would be interested in his reaction--and I said this earlier in the Chamber, I am not interested in across-the-board denigration of public service. I believe in public service. So does my colleague from Wisconsin. So do Republicans and Democrats alike. It seems to me we ought to let go of these special favors, these perks, these gifts. We ought to let go of it. If you want people to believe in us, if you want people to believe in the outcome of this process, if you want people to have more confidence in the Senate and in the House and in politics in Washington, DC, then let go of these gifts. Would my colleague agree with me?

Mr. WELLSTONE. So this alternative McConnell-Dole proposal, in the name of reform, in many ways essentially solidifies, if you will, the culture of politics as we know it right now in the Nation's Capital. Let me go on and ask my colleague a couple of other questions. By the way, I would say this alternative proposal that we have takes us a long way from I think what the majority leader on October 15 of last year said, which was that ``no lobbyists' lunches, no entertainment, no travel, no contributions to legal defense funds, no fruit baskets, no nothing.'' This proposal that we now get from the other side certainly takes us a long way from that. The second part of this proposal would allow privately financed vacation trips in the form of charity golf, tennis and ski events to be accepted by Members from lobbyists, as I think we could accept that for ourselves, our spouses, our family. I would ask my colleague. This is the alternative proposal. Does he see this as reform or does he see this as having that sort of, if you will, look of reform but, again, an open-ended proposition where we have lobbyists and special interests paying for skiing, paying for tennis, or paying for vacations for ourselves and our families?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know this afternoon we will be focusing on the lobbying disclosure reform effort. Senator Feingold and I, of course, are strong supporters of that, as are Senators Levin and Cohen, and others. I ask unanimous consent that we might have up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just reinforce one point that Senator Levin made. Again, I do not know anybody in the Senate that has provided more leadership for reform of good government than the Senator from Michigan over the years. I do not know if it is the conventional wisdom here any longer, but at one point in time I think the conventional wisdom here in the Congress, Representatives and Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike--I make a nonpartisan point here--was these reform issues, lobbying disclosure reform, comprehensive gift ban reform, and also campaign finance reform. But let me take the lobbying disclosure reform and gift ban reform. I think that unfortunately too many Democrats and Republicans alike believe that these reform issues are of interest to ``goo-goo,'' good government, people. There has been a certain cynicism about it. But it is just not true. There have been a lot of public interest organizations that have been at this for years--Public Citizen, Common Cause. You could go on an on. But the much more important point is that people yearn for good Government. They yearn for a political process they can believe in. These are no longer, if they ever were, reform issues. These are really issues that people talk about in their kitchens and their living rooms. I just think that we make a huge mistake when we try to stonewall the change. So my hope, starting with lobbying disclosure reform and then with comprehensive gift ban reform, is that before the debate is over, we can in the next several days be very proud, all of us, that we will have made some huge changes, significant changes, positive changes. I think, if there is stonewall, to come up with measures that sort of have the label of reform but the closer you look at them the more dubious they are--in fact, they do not meet the credibility test--I think the worse off all of us will be. So let us start with the lobbying disclosure reform. I say to the whip, let us move forward, let us come together, and let us pass something that we are all proud of. Then let us try to do exactly the same thing with comprehensive gift ban reform. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the Senator from Kentucky have a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief. First, I thank Senators Levin and Cohen for their very fine work, and I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor. As all of my colleagues know, we have taken up lobbying reform first and then later we will take up the gift ban legislation. I think both Senators make a compelling case. We really have not made any changes since the late 1940's--I think, since 1948. The point is, for those that are paid to lobby, whether lobbying legislators or members of the executive branch, this is part of the way in which we conduct politics in Washington, DC. People in the country have a right to know who is being paid to lobby and have a right to have some understanding--or a clearer understanding, let me say--of the kind of scope of those activities. I think that is what we are trying to do in this lobbying reform effort. Mr. President, again, I think this goes to the heart of accountability. I think it goes to the best of good government. I certainly hope that this very important lobbying reform effort will bear fruit and we will pass a reform measure. Senator Cohen said it well as I was coming in. I believe what I heard him say, that it was absolutely nothing to do with the denigration of the work of any particular lobbyist, that is not it at all. It has much more to do, again, with just making sure that it is a political process that is open and accountable. That is the issue. I commend both Senators for their very fine work, and say that I am very proud to be a part of this. It is also true, Mr. President, and I want to be clear, we will take up gift ban later on. That is not what is on the floor right now. We have two different amendments--two different initiatives--that we will be dealing with separately. I do think, however, there is an important connection, namely, as we move forward and pass--and I believe we will, I believe we must--a comprehensive gift ban reform and as we put some restrictions on this. It is very important. Obviously, if we are going to have some very clear restrictions about what lobbyists can give, then it will not work if only a small fraction of those who are actually paid to lobby are ever really listed, or if we do not have a clear idea as to who the people are who are getting paid to lobby, or we have no clear idea of what their scope of activities are. Those measures, in a policy sense, are very closely related. Mr. President, the last point--and let me again point out for colleagues that gift ban is later; right now it is lobbying reform. One more time, in 1994, 88 current Senators, 85 veteran Senators and 3 of the 6 freshman Senators who served in the House of Representatives in 1994 voted in favor of the comprehensive gift ban bill which we will have on the floor tonight or tomorrow. I just would say to those Senators that I think there was a reason for that kind of broad-based support. I hope people will not retreat from that or essentially change their positions or flip-flop, or whatever characterization can be used. Mr. President, this is an issue that people in the country feel very strongly about. I think it goes beyond just the gift ban reform. I think it has more to do with the very strong sense that people have about politics in Washington. The Senator from Kentucky and I have many disagreements in these different areas, but I personally think--and I apologize to the Senator if I am being presumptuous--but I personally believe there is one very strong area of agreement, which is that neither Senator would be in public service if we did not believe in our work. I reject the across- the-board bashing and denigration of public service, whether it is Democrats or Republicans or Independents. I think it takes us nowhere good as a nation. My very strong feeling about this is that the sooner we move forward and pass what I think would really be some strong reform measures, credible reform measures, that changes some of the political culture in the Nation's Capital, the better off all will be. We need to let go of it. I think people want us to let go of it. I think we have at the moment, whether tonight or tomorrow or whenever we get to gift ban, some very major differences. I say to my colleague later, when we get a chance to debate this, because I do not want to move in on the lobbying reform time, but I think that at the moment, at least, the Republican proposal has just some gigantic loopholes, large enough for a truck to drive through. Later on tonight, not now, Mr. President, I will include an editorial from the New York Times on Saturday called ``Republican Gift Fraud.'' Frankly, before it is all over, I think we can pass a strong comprehensive gift ban legislation. To give but one example, if we essentially say any gift under $100 is fine, lobbyists or others, and it does not aggregate, in theory, every day of the week someone can be taking Members out or paying for a ticket to an Orioles game or whatever. This is where there is agreement and disagreement. On the agreement part, I do not actually think that Senators ``are for sale.'' I do not look at any of this as sort of representing the wrongdoing of individual officerholders. I just do not believe that is what it is about. But at a systemic level, I must say that what people of Minnesota say to me is, ``Look, Senator, people do not come up and ask to take us out to dinner.''

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky again. I said to my colleague from Michigan I did not want, now, to make gift ban the focus. We are now on lobbying reform. Of course the disagreement the Senator from Kentucky and I have, and I think also with the Senator from Michigan and others, that while I do not think the issue was the wrongdoing of an individual officeholder, that was my position--while I reject the denigration and the bashing of public service and people who are in public service because I am very proud the Minnesotans have given me this opportunity to be a Senator--on the other hand, I think as I started to say, when people in Minnesota come up to me--you may have had the same thing happen to you, Mr. President--what people say is, ``Look, Senator, in all due respect, people do not offer to take us out. Lobbyists are not asking us to go out to dinner. They are not always contributing tickets for games, they are not paying for us to go to various events in the country, for our travel for ourselves or our spouses. And we do not think it is appropriate that you take those gifts either. Because whether or not this leads to undue influence, it certainly seems that way to us.'' I must say that it does become a part of the pattern of influence in Washington. It does become a part of the political culture in this city. And that is what makes it so profoundly wrong. So, while I am not here to bash individual Senators or Representatives, or point the finger and say that somebody sold out for a particular lunch, I would say in the aggregate this is the way in which business is now conducted that does lead to a situation where too few people have way too much access and way too much say. And too many people, too many of the people we represent, are left out of the loop. That is why I think this will be such a fundamental debate later on. Mr. President, we may get to it tonight or we may get to it tomorrow. I think we ought to be voting one way or another and we ought to be held accountable. Again, I say to all of my colleagues, last year, 85 Senators and 3 of the 6 freshman Senators who served in the House, voted for this measure that Senator Levin, myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, Senator McCain and others have worked on. So I do not see why in the world now, especially when everybody has been talking about reform, there would be a retreat from this. The majority leader himself, I think, last October 15 came out on the floor and said: No lobbyist lunches, no entertainment, no travel, no contributions to legal defense, no fruit baskets, no nothing. It could not be clearer. We will get to that later on. At the moment, I say to colleagues, I hope there will be a coming together over the next couple of days. First, we will pass a good, strong, lobbying reform effort. This is very significant, what Senator Levin and Cohen have been working on. This goes to the heart of a really important reform issue that, by the way, people in the country care fiercely about. It is not true that people in the country are not focused on good Government, are not focused on making Government more open and more accountable. This goes to the heart of that. So I think it is imperative that we come together and pass a strong reform effort in the lobbying reform area. The same thing could be said for the gift ban, Mr. President. The same thing can be said for the gift ban. For my own part, I would like nothing better than to see Senators on both sides of the aisle come together and support two major reform initiatives in these two decisive areas, lobbying reform and gift ban. On the other hand, when it comes to gift ban, given what I have seen on the Republican side so far, I do not view that as a step forward. I view it as a great leap sideways or backwards. If that is the case, then we will have a major, major debate and then all of us will be held accountable. But I say to colleagues: People in the country are serious about this. I think we can come through for people. If we do, I think it will be good for the Senate. I think it will be good for the political process, the legislative process, in the future--in the distant future when many of us are no longer serving here. I think we can feel like we made a huge difference. And I certainly think it will go a significant ways toward restoring some confidence that I think people yearn to have in our political process. The missing piece is the campaign finance reform piece which I also hope we will take up later. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, principle and people, not power and prerogatives, that is what this debate is about. Two Fridays ago we came to the floor and we said, regarding these kinds of cuts in programs that have such a dramatic impact on people's lives in our States and around the country, this cannot be a Stealth Senate, we demanded the right to have debate, to introduce amendments, and to have those amendments voted on. Now that will happen. That is a victory. There would have been more amendments, but in one area, where I could not understand why in the world the Senate was making cuts, a counseling program for elderly people so they do not get ripped off on some of the health care plans that are presented to them, that money has been restored through reprogramming--a victory. But it is about more than power and prerogative, it is about principle and it is about people. We gave our word from the very beginning that we wanted the opportunity to have these amendments on the floor. It has taken 2 weeks of tough negotiations for that to happen. We wanted this to be done in an accountable way. And we live up to our word. But there is more than power and prerogative here. Last night the majority leader--it is his prerogative--decided we would get started on this bill at 10:30 or 11 o'clock at night, to use up time. Why not have more of the debate during the day when people in the country can observe it and make up their own mind? That is prerogative. That is power. The majority leader has also made it clear to everyone in this Chamber that if his motion to table our amendments--there will be two separate votes--does not succeed, he will pull the bill. What is this all about? The majority leader says, and I want to make it clear: If you should succeed, Senator Wellstone and Senator Moseley-Braun, I will pull the bill. That is power and prerogative. But let me please talk about people. The Low-Income Energy Assistant Program, the total cost was $1.3 billion--about the cost of one B-2 bomber. And Senator Byrd and Senator Hatfield and Senators, when you voted this bill initially out of the Senate, you voted for that full expenditure. You have not contradicted your vote when you vote on low- energy assistance today. But in this deal, that we in the Senate had nothing to do with, we saw a 25-percent cut, $319 million. Mr. President, I come from a cold-weather State. For most of the low- income energy assistance people it is not an income supplement, it is a survival supplement. Mr. President, 53 percent of them work at low wages; 32 percent are senior citizens; 41 percent are households with small children; 50 percent earn under $6,000 a year. And there are about 300,000 people in my State that depend on this, and many more would be eligible but the funding levels have been cut so dramatically over the years we cannot even help all the people that need some assistance. I thought we are all our brothers' and sisters' keeper. But please remember it is not just heating assistance, it is cooling assistance. My God, 450 people in our country have died in the last week and a half, 2 weeks; elderly, most of them poor, no air-conditioning, no cooling assistance. And we are cutting this program. What does this say about our priorities? GAO report: ``Travel Process, re: Engineering. DOD Faces Challenges in Using Industry Practices to Reduce Costs.'' All about waste in Pentagon travel budget. Washington Post series, ``Billions Go Astray, Often Without A Trace: Defense Department.'' In the LIHEAP amendment I just say, can we not transfer $319 million from all this waste and put it into the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program? Mr. President, my colleague from Illinois will talk with eloquence and power about job training programs for dislocated workers, about job training programs for veterans, about children's programs, education programs. I have not met one Minnesotan in one cafe who has said to me, ``Senator, when you do this deficit reduction, cut those job training programs for dislocated workers.'' Mr. President, all of my colleagues need to understand, when we talk about the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, which will be the first vote, the House of Representatives has zeroed it out. They did it at 3 a.m. last week. They zeroed the program out. This vote today is all about whether we are going to continue it. That is the meaning of this vote. There is power and prerogative, and some people here are saying, ``If I loose, I will pull the bill.'' But what about the people in the country who lose? Many Senators signed a letter saying there ought to be the $1.3 billion, that is not too much. Forget the power and prerogative, forget the deal, I say to my colleagues. If we restore this funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, it will go to the House of Representatives and it could be back here at 1 p.m. We all know that. And you cannot say to the people you represent: I am sorry, you go without heating assistance, you are going to be homeless, or you are going to be cold, or you are going to die because of summer heat, because we made a deal with the House and it will take us a few extra hours to pass this bill. My God, I do not see the values behind that kind of position. I am sorry the White House was a part of this deal. I am sorry the deal was made late at night and then it came over here. And we made it clear we were not going to just let it sail through. But I say to my colleagues, you do not represent the White House. It does not matter whether you are a Democrat or Republican, we took the position before in the Senate that there ought to be adequate funding. You represent the people back in your States. And people are counting on you. So I say to my colleagues, this is not about power and prerogative. This is about people and principles. I appeal to every Democrat and every Republican, please, Senators, do not be generous with the suffering of other people. Let me repeat that. These are not statistics, these are not charts, these are not deals, these are not abstractions. Whatever State you come from, hot weather or cold weather, whether you are a Democrat or Republican: Please do not be generous with the suffering of other people. Vote your principles. Vote for what you believe in. We should win this vote. I yield the floor. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduce the Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act of 1995. I am joined today by Senators Spector, Hatfield, Jeffords, Harkin, Moynihan, and Kennedy, as original cosponsors of this measure. This bipartisan legislation outlines a comprehensive strategy for providing critical assistance to refugees, asylees, and parolees who are torture survivors in the United States and abroad. It is an important blueprint for an overall approach to the serious problem of torture. This legislation provides a focus and a framework for a newly reenergized debate about where torture survirors, and our response to the practice of torture by other countries, fit within our foreign policy priorities. The bill authorizes funds for torture rehabilitation programs, both here and abroad. It also increases the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims. It is similar to legislation introduced toward the end of last year by myself, and Senator Durenburger and Harkin. The bill is being supported by over 65 organizations concerned with human rights issues. This legislation is also similar to H.R. 1416, introduced earlier this year in the other body by Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of ideologically diverse Representatives ranging from Representative Hyde to Representative Frank, and including Representatives Lantos, Wolf, Rohrabacher, Yates, Pelosi, Sabo, McKinney, and Vento. With such bipartisan support, I hope that Congress will move quickly to enact this important legislation. While the huge cuts in foreign aid programs that have been proposed in Congress will make even a modest expansion of torture treatment assistance doubly difficult, I want to do everything I can to see the key provisions of this bill enacted into law. I hope that enactment of this legislation will be a watershed in the movement to garner broader public and private support, both here and abroad, for much-needed torture rehabilitation programs. Specifically, the Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act would authorize funds for domestic refugee assistance centers as well as bilateral assistance to torture treatment centers worldwide. It would also change our immigration laws to give a priority to torture survivors; provide for specialized training for U.S. consular personnel who deal with torture survivors; and commission a comprehensive study by the National Institutes of Health on the numbers and geographical distribution of refugees and asylees who are torture survivors now in the United States. That study should help refine our goals and then help us to target those people in need of rehabilitation assistance. Finally, the bill would allow an increase in the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims, which funds and supports rehabilitation programs worldwide. In 1994, this fund contributed over $3.7 million to 106 projects in 60 countries. I believe that continuing to expand the U.S. contribution to the fund is necessary as a show of genuine U.S. commitment to human rights, and I will continue to push until these programs receive the funding they need and deserve. This bill would not cause an increase in the Federal budget deficit because spending would be reallocated from among funds already provided for in Federal law. For example, as a demonstration of our commitment, the United States could reallocate funds to these rehabilitation programs from military assistance to foreign governments which torture their own people, or condone it within their borders. Reducing military aid to countries which practice torture or ignore its existence has a certain symmetry, and would be another way of signifying our opposition to torture. Mr. President, the practice of torture is one of the most serious human rights issues of our time. Governmental torture, and torture being condoned by officials of governments, occurs in at least 70 countries today. We have seen this most horribly demonstrated recently in Bosnia, where torture, rape, and other atrocities have become commonplace. We can and must do more to stop torture, and to treat its victims. Treating torture victims must be a much more central focus of our efforts as we work to promote human rights worldwide. Without active programs of healing and recovery, torture survivors often suffer continued physical pain, depression and anxiety, intense and incessant nightmares, guilt and self-loathing. They often report an inability to concentrate or remember. The severity of the trauma makes it difficult to hold down a job, study for a new profession, or acquire other skills needed for successful adjustment into society. Providing treatment for torture survivors is one of the best ways we can show our concern for human rights around the world. The United States and the international community have been increasingly aware of the need to prevent human rights abuses and to punish the perpetrators when abuses take place. But too often we have failed to address the needs of the victims. We pay little if any attention to the treatment of victims after their rights have been violated. The commitment to protect human rights is one shared by many around the world. In 1984, the United Nation approved the United Nations' Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The U.S. Senate ratified it in April 1994. Although Congress has taken some steps to implement parts of the convention, we have not yet taken action to provide sufficient rehabilitation services in the spirit of the language of article 14 of the convention. Certainly, there exists a great need for the rehabilitation programs supported by this legislation. The generally accepted estimate of the number of torture survivors, including refugees, asylees, and parolees in the United States, hovers around 200,000--although some experts in the field believe it may be closer to 400,000. In my State of Minnesota alone, there are estimated to be over 8,000 survivors of torture. The Federal Government's response to this problem so far has been minimal. In Minnesota, we began to think about the problem of torture, and act on it, over 10 years ago. The Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis is the only fully-staffed torture treatment facility in the country and one of a select few worldwide. They just celebrated their 10th anniversary. The center offers outpatient services which can include medical treatment, psychotherapy and help gaining economic and legal stability. Its advocacy work also helps to inform people about the problem of torture and the lingering effects it has on victims, and ways to combat torture worldwide. The center has treated or provided services to hundreds of people over the last 10 years. Some of the often shrill public rhetoric these days seems to argue that we, as a nation, can no longer afford to remain engaged with the world, or to assist the poor, the elderly, the feeble, refugees, those seeking asylum--those most in need of aid who are right here in our midst. The Center for Victims of Torture stands as a repudiation of that idea. Its mission is to rescue and rehabilitate people who have been crushed by torture, and it has been accomplishing that mission admirably over the last 10 years. It is a light of hope in the lives of those who have for so long seen only darkness, a darkness brought on by the brutal hand of the torturer. I would like to thank the distinguished human rights leaders who helped craft this bill, including those at the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis and others in the human rights community here in Washington and in Minnesota. Without their energy and skills as advocates for tough U.S. laws which promote respect for internationally recognized human rights worldwide, the cause of human rights here in the United States would be seriously diminished. I salute them today. We must commit ourselves to aiding torture survivors and to building a world in which torture is relegated to the dark past. My hope is that we can help bring about a world in which the need for torture treatment programs becomes obsolete. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and I urge its timely passage. I ask unanimous consent that a partial list of organizations supporting the Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act be printed in the Record along with a copy of the bill.