Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to take a few moments. I know Senator Kennedy is here on the floor, and I believe Senator Feingold may be coming down as well. In any case, I want colleagues to know next week when we do get back to the bankruptcy bill, whenever it is, there are a number of Senators who are ready to speak on this bill and go into its substance. I think the 100-0 vote is an indication that we do not mind going forward with the bill, but we do intend to speak about this legislation because the more people know about this legislation, the more likely Senators will vote against it. We certainly intend to have the debate, and if there is a cloture vote next week--there may or may not be--we intend to do everything we can to defeat this legislation. We have time to debate this legislation next week. If it goes to beyond cloture, we will have more hours then to debate this legislation. Let's take one step at a time. I will point out to Senators the process first, and then we will go to substance. I do not know whether or not this is an argument that wins with the public. The argument about this bankruptcy bill on substance wins with the public. We have had some discussion about the scope of the conference and rule XXVIII. This was a State Department authorization bill. We had an ``invasion of the body snatchers'' where all of the content dealing with State Department reauthorization has been taken out and bankruptcy has been put in. It is a clear abuse of the legislative process. I doubt whether any Senator who views himself as a legislator can be comfortable with the way we are proceeding. I believe there are many Senators who are going to want to speak about this outrageous process. I do not know if I have ever seen anything like this where we have a State Department reauthorization bill conference report that is hollowed out, gutted completely, and replaced by the bankruptcy reform bill conference report. It is unbelievable. It is beyond anything I ever imagined could go wrong in the Senate. It is a way to jam something through, but in one way I can understand why the majority leader and others would try to jam this through because the content, the actual legislation itself, is so egregious. I simply point out to Senators that there is not one word, not one aspect of this legislation--next week I will have a chance to talk a lot about it; we will talk a lot about this legislation--there is not one word, not one provision, not one sentence, not one section which holds credit card companies or large banks accountable for their predatory practices. There is no accountability whatsoever. We have nothing in this legislation that holds them accountable, but what we do have is legislation that, first of all, rests on a faulty premise. The bill addresses a crisis that does not exist. We keep hearing these scare statistics, which, by the way, do not jibe with the empirical evidence that there has been all these increased bankruptcy filings. In fact, bankruptcy filings have fallen dramatically over the last 2 years. We have heard about the abuse. The American Bankruptcy Institute points out that, at best, we are talking about 3 percent of the people who file chapter 7 who actually could pay back their debts; 3-percent abuse, and for 3-percent abuse, what we are doing is tearing up a safety net for middle-income people, for working-income people, for low-income people who are trying to rebuild their lives. Do we do anything about health care costs? No. Is the No. 1 cause of bankruptcy medical bills? Yes. Do we do anything about raising the minimum wage? No. Do we do anything about affordable housing? No. Do we do anything about affordable prescription drugs for elderly people? No. But the banking industry and the credit card industry get a free ride, and we pass a piece of legislation which is so harsh that it will make it difficult for middle-income people, much less low-income people, to rebuild their lives. Hardly anybody abuses this. No one wants to go through bankruptcy. People are doing it because there is a major illness in their family. They are doing it because somebody lost their job. They are doing it because of some financial catastrophe. When people today try to rebuild their lives, we come to the floor of the Senate with a piece of legislation basically written by the credit card industry, written by the big financial institutions. They are the ones with all the clout. They are the ones with all the say. I say to my colleagues, it is not coincidental that every civil rights organization opposes this; that every labor organization opposes this; that almost every single women's and children's organization opposes this; that the vast majority of the religious communities and organizations oppose this. Today we had a vote to proceed, but next week there will be an all- out debate and we will focus on the harshness of this legislation, the one-sidedness of this legislation. By the way, this legislation in this hollowed out sham conference report is worse than the legislation that passed the Senate. Now we have a bill that says to women, single women, children, low- and moderate-income families: You are not going to be able to rebuild your lives; we are going to pass a piece of legislation that is going to make it impossible for you to rebuild your lives even when you have been put under because of a huge medical bill, no fault of your own. At the same time, for those folks who have lots of money, if they want to go to one of the five States where they can put all their money into a $1 million or $2 million home, they are exempt; they are OK. This is what the majority party brings before the Senate. It is unbelievable. No wonder they have to do it through this ``invasion of the body snatchers'' conference report. They take a State Department conference report, gut it, take out every provision that deals with the State Department reauthorization, and put in a bankruptcy bill that is even more harsh than the one that passed the Senate that is anticonsumer, antiwomen, antichildren, antiworking people and I think anti some basic values about fairness and justice. I hope next week--I do not hope, I know--there will be a sharp debate, and we are prepared to debate this; we are prepared to use every single privilege we have as Senators to fight this tooth and nail. And next week there will be a long, spirited discussion about this piece of legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this agriculture appropriations bill. While it is clear there are some significant shortfalls with regard to the prescription drug re- importation issue, which I will speak about later, on balance this legislation will provide much needed help to family farmers, rural communities, and low income families. I am pleased this legislation includes substantial emergency assistance, $3.6 billion, directed to family farmers in Minnesota, and across the nation, who are suffering from natural disasters, historically low prices and increasingly concentrated markets which have largely been brought on by the failed 1996 Freedom to Farm Bill, or as I call it the Freedom to Fail Act. Specifically this legislation will provide $1.6 billion to producers who have been devastated by lost crops due to natural or weather related disasters. In my state of Minnesota, 7 to 10 inches of rain fell in early June in the Red River Valley, which destroyed what promised to be a bumper crop, and has forced hundreds of family farmers to clean up flood damages for the eighth consecutive year. The Minnesota Farm Service agency tell us that almost 400,000 acres of crops have been destroyed in Minnesota. While crop insurance will cover some of the losses, this additional emergency assistance will be necessary for many family farmers in the region. This part of Minnesota, largely dependent on a poor farm economy, has been devastated by successive years of floods that have forced many off the farm. And this rain storm affected other areas of my state including localized portions of Southeast Minnesota. Overall twelve counties in Minnesota have been affected by major disasters and experienced major crop losses. It is vitally important that this disaster aid get out to producers quickly. However, it is also vitally important that we take some action to deal with the root problems in agriculture policy. As many of my colleagues know, the 1996 farm bill has proven to be a total failure. By destroying any safety net for family farmers and capping loan rates at artificially low levels, the 1996 bill has left farmers vulnerable to the sever economic and weather related events of the past three years, resulting in devastating income losses. And while the premise of the Freedom to Farm bill was to ``get the government out of agriculture'' the Federal government has been forced to spend more on disaster packages--over $25 billion--over the last four years than was supposed to be spend through the seven year life of the law. Again this year, Congress has failed to address the impact of plummeting farm incomes and the ripple effect it is having throughout rural communities and their economic base. I can assure my colleagues that if we do not write a new farm bill early next year, if the only help family farmers get from Washington is unreliable, long delayed emergency aid bills that are distributed unfairly, family farmers are not going to survive. Family farmers deserve a targeted, counter-cyclical loan rate that provides a meaningful level of income support when the market price falls below the loan rate. Lifting the loan rate would provide relief to farmers who need it and increase stability over the long term. We also need to institute farmer-owned reserve systems to give farmers the leverage they need in the marketplace, and conservation incentives to reward farmers who carry out conservation measures on their land. We need a new farm bill. In addition to the failed farm bill, I have found that family farmers rank the lack of competitive markets as a major factor to explain the price crisis that is devastating rural America. While there can be no argument that the majority in Congress has failed to pass, or even consider, legislation, such a I and others have proposed, to deal with the rash of agribusiness mega-mergers, this appropriations bill has taken some positive steps. Included in this legislation is an increase in the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration's, GIPSA, budget to fund essential programs that ensure competitive markets and fair prices for our independent livestock producers. I am pleased to say that this increase, which I had proposed during Senate consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill, will result in an increase of $4.151 million over the Senate approved bill. As many of my colleagues know, this is essential funding that will help bolster GIPSA's market concentration activities. For several years, livestock producers have expressed their concern over evermore concentrated markets, as well as extreme frustration over what they perceive as inadequate governmental action to ensure fair and competitive markets. Consequently, GIPSA has been asked to assume a more prominent role in ensuring competitiveness and fairness in the livestock industry. GIPSA is conducting a growing number of investigations on market concentration in agriculture, within shorter time frames, using increasingly sophisticated economic and legal analysis. Examples of what this money will be used for include: anti- competitive behavior investigations; rapid response teams that are utilized for time sensitive issues that require expeditious investigations to protect small family producers; and a contract library that will be used to catalogue each type of contract offered by packers to producers. This appropriations bill also contains vital emergency assistance for small independent dairy producers. H.R. 4461 will provide $473 million in direct income relief payments to family dairy farmers throughout the nation. The money is targeted to small- and medium-scale farms who are in the midst of a price crisis as a result of the wild price fluctuations we have been seeing for the past few years. Mr. President, in my state of Minnesota, dairy production is truly one of the cornerstones of our economy. We have 8,700 dairy farms in Minnesota, ranking us fifth in the nation in dairy production. The average herd size of a Minnesota dairy farm is about 60 cows. Family agriculture is not just an important element of our states heritage, it is vital to our future. But right now, dairy farmers in Minnesota and throughout the country need relief. Therefore, I am pleased this legislation includes a provision, which I joined the Senators from Wisconsin in proposing, to provide $473 million in targeted emergency payments to dairy farmers nationwide. I continue to see the urgency of this is aid, especially as we in Minnesota lose dairy farms at a rate of three per day. This will put money in the pockets of dairy farmers soon, when they need it, not a year from now when many of them will have already sold their cows. However, it is, like last year's funding, merely a bandage to stop the bleeding. Dairy farmers everywhere need meaningful policy reform. In order to achieve a fair, sustainable and stable long term price, we need a dairy price support program that is set at a level sufficient to curb the current market volatility. In addition, H.R. 4461 contains significant increases in rural development programs to help rural communities make it through these difficult economic times. Furthermore, I am pleased the bill contains a provision I added to provide $3 million in grants to promote employment of rural residents through teleworking. Telework is a new method of doing work that will allow information technology jobs to be a part of diverse, sustainable rural economies while helping IT employers find skilled workers. Specifically, telework is the use of telecommunications technology, like the Internet, to perform work functions over a distance instead of at the traditional workplace of the employer. This provision will allow rural communities to access federal resources to implement locally designed proposals to use telework as a tool for rural development. This represents a critical opportunity for diversification and revitalization of rural economies. This bill also takes some important first steps to ensure that all low-income families receive the food stamps they need to prevent hunger and ensure adequate nutrition. The bill incorporates an amendment I offered to require a study in the next 180 days so we can learn what obstacles families face when they try to get food stamps, as well as why the rolls have declines so dramatically in recent years. There is a growing sense that the Food Stamp Program is not functioning adequately in assisting working poor families and helping to ``make work pay.'' Although eligibility for food stamps is no longer tied to welfare receipt, the dramatic declines in the cash assistance rolls appear to have resulted in large numbers of eligible low-income families failing to receive the food stamp assistance for which they qualify, including many families who have moved from welfare to work. This study will help us understand the kinds of policy and program implementation decisions we need to make in order to better ensure that working poor families in this country are not going hungry. The bill also includes two provisions from the Hunger Relief Act--one which will raise the vehicle allowance, and one which will raise the shelter cap deduction, for families receiving food stamps. This provision means that working parents who are dependent on a car to get to and from work will still be able to get the food stamps that they need, and parents who spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent because they live in communities that lack available affordable housing will also now be better able to get the food stamps that provide critical nutritional supports for themselves and their children. This is a very important first step, and I now hope that we will see the remaining provisions in the Hunger Relief Act enacted before the end of this session. In particular, it is critical that we restore food stamp benefits to post-96 legal immigrants as soon as possible. Mr. President, now let me turn to the prescription drug import provision which is included in this conference report. This is legislation designed to correct the injustice that finds American consumers the least likely of any in the industrialized world to be able to afford drugs manufactured by the American pharmaceutical industry because of the unconscionable prices the industry charges only here in the United States. Mr. President, I meet with many constituents, but none with more compelling stories than senior citizens struggling to make ends meet because of the high cost of prescription drugs--life-saving drugs that are not covered under the Medicare program. Indeed, it is shameful that this Congress has failed to enact a prescription drug benefit under Medicare available to all beneficiaries. But the issue is not just Medicare's lack of coverage. The unfairness which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated by the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States--the same drugs that can be purchased for frequently half the price in Canada or Mexico or Europe. These are the exact same drugs, manufactured in the exact same facilities with the exact same safety precautions. Minnesotans know this because they can drive to Canada and see the price differentials for themselves. Driving to Canada every few months to buy prescription drugs at affordable prices isn't the solution, nor is it an option for most Americans. That is why I introduced with Senator Dorgan the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, and with Senator Jeffords the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act, two bills designed to amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow American pharmacists and distributors to import prescription drugs into the United States as long as the drugs meet the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) strict safety standards. Under these proposals, pharmacists and distributors would be able to purchase these drugs--often manufactured right here in the U.S.--at lower prices overseas and then pass the huge savings along to American consumers. This legislation has evolved quite a bit through the legislative process. Early in that process there had been two constants: bipartisanship in seeking lower prices for American consumers and opposition every step of the way by a pharmaceutical industry bent on preserving profits. We were on the verge of producing a strong bipartisan final result until the process was hijacked by the Republican leadership. Rather than a bipartisan bill that would guarantee Americans the opportunity to share in lower drug prices which are available everywhere else in the world, Republicans fell in line with the pharmaceutical industry and shut the door on closing loopholes which would protect the rights of American consumers to affordable, safe prescription drugs. Following after their leadership, Republican members of the Agriculture appropriations conference committee ditched the bipartisan process, jettisoned legislative language that would have assured American consumers access to affordable drugs, and left open for the pharmaceutical industry loopholes that could defeat the purpose of this legislation. What language was unilaterally rejected by the Republicans? First, was a provision that would have required manufacturers to provide access to their FDA-approved U.S. labels. Currently, when drugs are reimported to the United States by drug companies, they must be relabeled with the FDA approved label. This new provision would have assured other importers access to those required labels. Without that requirement, manufacturers could stonewall importation by not providing the labels. Second, was a provision that prevents manufacturers from entering into agreements with their foreign distributors that interfere with the resale of prescription drugs back into the United States. Either of these loopholes could prevent the reimportation of prescription drugs, which is why they should never have been allowed to remain in the final bill. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given broad authority to draft regulations to facilitate importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs, which gives me some hope. But the Secretary's authority does not lessen my outrage or that of my Democratic colleagues about the process which resulted in those major loopholes going unaddressed. It is unfortunate that the productive bipartisanship which had prevailed during the past year to pass this bill was discarded in the last, critical hours. This needn't have happened. There was an effort when the conference met to close the loopholes, ensuring that the pharmaceutical industry could not make en end run around the effective implementation of this bill. But, given the choice of standing with American consumers, especially America's senior citizens, or the most profitable industry in America, Republicans chose the industry that has sought to undermine this bill from the start. While I am saddened about the missed opportunity to produce a stronger, water-tight legislative product, I do believe the present bill is an improvement over the status quo, and continues to have the potential for lowering prescription drug prices here in the United States. If however, the pharmaceutical industry takes advantage of the Republican-tolerated loopholes, then I will be back next year with legislation to close those loopholes and make this law work. Mr. President, again, I intend to support this agriculture appropriations bill. I thank my colleagues on the floor, Senator Cochran, Senator Kohl, Senator Harkin, and others for their very good work. I speak as a Senator from an agricultural State. I want mention the emergency assistance. It is much appreciated. We have gone through some difficult times. We have had flooding and we have had scab disease, and that on top of record-low prices and record-low farm income, which has led to a lot of economic pain. I thank my colleagues for their very good work. Second of all, let me especially thank Senator Kohl and Senator Harkin for their work. I had an amendment on the floor to get some additional money for GIPSA. They helped me in conference committee. I thank Senator Cochran as well. I really want GIPSA to be about the work of looking at the problem of concentration of power. So many of our livestock producers are not getting a fair shake. The IBPs and ConAgras of this world are muscling their way to the dinner table and muscling family farmers off the farm. I think it is important that GIPSA be able to look at this whole problem of an increasing concentration of economic and, I argue as well, political power. Third of all, let me thank Senator Kohl, in particular, for his fine work on some direct income relief payments for dairy farmers. I think we have about 473 million nationwide. We have 8,700 dairy farmers in the State of Minnesota. Again, record-low prices have been a nightmare for these farmers. I thank Senator Kohl for his good work. I am proud to be a part of this. There is also in this bill a provision that I think is historically significant. It only starts out with $3 million, and this is going to be done within USDA, obviously. This is going to be a telework program where we will try to set up some models, centers of distance learning, whereby farmers and other rural people with strong ethics and who want to work are going to be able to get training and be connected with information technology companies and find employment at good wages but do it out of farm, out of home, or satellite office--do the telework. I think this is one of the most important things we have in this bill. I am very excited about it. Many people in Minnesota who transcend all political boundaries helped on this. Let me also thank in particular Senator Harkin. He fought it out in conference committee, getting us back to the Food and Nutrition Service--going out there and after 180 days in the field came back with a report telling us why there has been such a steep decline in food stamp participation. The Food Stamp Program is a major safety net program to make sure children do not go hungry. We want to know why there has been such a severe decline in participation. I wish there had been a 30-percent decline in poverty in this country. There has been no such decline. There has been a dramatic rise in food shelters and pantries. We know a lot of people are not getting the help they need. I thank my colleagues for supporting this issue. I thank Senator Kennedy for his fine work on the Hunger Relief Act. Senator Cochran has a longstanding commitment to these issues as well. I think it is important that we do some revisions when it comes to shelters, as well as dependency on car and transportation in allowing more people to be eligible for food stamp assistance. Finally, on the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, I don't know that I am in complete agreement with Senator Harkin, but I know what he is saying. I did this amendment with Senator Jeffords and Senator Dorgan, originally. I think when it went to the conference committee there was some effort to make sure we would tighten it up. In particular, I think there is a concern that the pharmaceutical companies will make it difficult, for example, for the Canadians to be involved in a reimportation of those drugs back to this country. I think we could have done better on the language. I think there are too many loopholes. I am disappointed the way this conference was done. I think this is a step forward. But I would like to have seen much more. I certainly think you have to have prescription drug benefits added onto Medicare if you are going to really provide the help people need. I think we should have done more. I thank Senator Jeffords for the work he has done on this amendment. I was proud to be a part of it. We have to write a new farm bill. We have to focus on getting farmers a decent price in the marketplace. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will my friend form Wisconsin yield for the purpose of a colloquy regarding the telework provision of the conference report.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I will only take 5 minutes if that is all right with him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would rather the Senator keep some time, so 5 minutes will be fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senate adopted an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill that directed $3 million to be spent for employer outreach, education, and job placement under the USDA/Rural Utilities Service Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program (DLT). The conferees have changed this provision to report language. We have a tremendous need in our rural communities to take advantage of today's technology and information revolution. I believe, because it essentially allows distance to be erased, telework is a promising tool for rural development and for making rural and reservation economies sustainable. I would ask my colleague if it is his understanding that the Senate's intent can be carried out by USDA Rural Development under existing authority.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate this clarification, and I ask my colleagues' indulgence for one further question. Would it also be correct that USDA Rural Development should promote employment of rural residents through teleworking not only through the use of the DLT Program, but also through other programs such as the rural business and the Community Facilities Program? These programs might allow funds to be used to provide employment-related services or high speed communications services which may be necessary to make telework a reality in rural communities.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Senator Kohl, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies. In particular, I would like to discuss the Department of Agriculture's solid waste management grant program, funded as a line item within the utilities section of the Rural Community Advancement Program. Authorized in section 310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, these grants allow public agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to local communities for reducing water pollution and improving solid waste management. I ask the Senator, whose State is a neighbor of mine, whether he agrees with, and whether it is his understanding that the subcommittee would support, my urging USDA to direct up to $1 million of the solid waste management grants to the regional, nonprofit, technical assistance organizations known as Rural Community Assistance Programs. These organizations have done an outstanding job serving the smallest, poorest and hardest to serve rural communities in the Midwest and across the country. The Rural Community Assistance Programs are key partners within USDA's Rural Community Advancement Program. Their nationwide network of technical assistance providers--serving water and wastewater system needs for thousands of rural communities--is highly qualified and well placed to improve the effectiveness of rural solid waste management. For example, the regional Rural Community Assistance Program which serves my State of Minnesota is the Midwest Assistance Program (MAP). Based in New Prague, MN, MAP serves nine midwestern States. The organization has carried out solid waste projects in collaboration with USDA, the Indian Health Service, and with individual tribes in communities throughout the region. MAP is now beginning to target assistance to Minnesota communities for the development of small transfer stations, to improve recycling and better manage solid waste.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. October 18, 1999: Michelle Alexander, 21, Charlotte, NC; Earl Baker, 22, St. Louis, MO; Karlton Cannon, 30, Chicago, IL; Michael Jones, 49, Knoxville, TN; Kenneth Pastuszak, 28, Detroit, MI; Brian Webster, 26, Detroit, MI; and Unidentified Male, 45, Honolulu, HI. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about S. 623, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, as amended by this critical amendment currently pending before the Senate. Over the last two years, I have worked to preserve and protect Minnesota's precious water rights and resources, in consultation with a number of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, and to ensure that the concerns expressed about the original bill by those in my state were taken into account as this legislation was developed. While it does not resolve the roughest underlying issues--indeed it does not even attempt to resolve them--I believe this amendment takes into account those concerns, and I appreciate the willingness of my distinguished colleagues from North Dakota to accommodate their neighbors to the east. It is clear this legislation, as amended by Senators Bond, Conrad, and Dorgan, is a very different bill than the one which was originally introduced. While I, along with the State of Minnesota, had serious reservations about the original version, in the past year my office has conducted extensive consultations and discussions with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources water officials, who have indicated that the amended version of this legislation--at least the sections which apply to Minnesota interests--is a reasonable measure which meets their concerns. I agree that the key elements of this legislation, in which I have been most interested, will now simply provide for a comprehensive and unbiased review of the water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley, and of the environmental implications of any proposed water transfers--either within the basin or on an inter- basin basis--and thus I have not objected, as I did to earlier requests, to bringing it to the Senate floor for consideration. There are other parts of the bill, as amended, which primarily affect existing or planned facilities in North Dakota, which have not raised concerns in my state. The amended bill does not pose the same concerns about biota transfer, inter-basin transfer, and water quality that I, and the State of Minnesota, had raised in forceful objection to the original legislation. In fact, it explicitly requires prior Congressional action and approval before any inter-basin transfer can be made. Under the bill, only after careful, reasoned study by the Secretary of the Interior--including extensive consultation with all of the interested stakeholders on the water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley, the various portions for meeting those needs, and the environmental implications of any further steps to address them--would Congress even consider an inter-basin transfer of water, which I and others would continue to oppose. Let me restate that, because it's important: this legislation would preclude any transfer of water from the Missouri River or its tributaries to the Red River Valley, unless specifically authorized by a future Act of Congress, thus allowing concerns of biota transfer, inter-basin transfers and water quality to be discussed and fairly resolved by all the parties involved beforehand. As many of my colleagues know, I have long opposed the original version of this legislation. I would continue to oppose any attempts to transfer water into the basin without adequate safeguards--if such safeguards can be devised, which is not at all clear. Many of my original concerns, and those of the state of Minnesota, including especially the Department of Natural Resources, remain about the detrimental environmental effects and potential adverse precedents of an inter-basin transfer. Even so, I recognize the real needs of our neighbors in North Dakota to resolve their continuing water problems, and I believe that the study provided for in this bill may help to further that effort. I believe this legislation represents a reasonable effort to move the process forward, while protecting the rights and resources of those in my state and elsewhere in the Upper Midwest. I commend my colleagues for their hard work and determination over these many years. The bill (S. 623), as amended, was read the third time and passed, as follows:

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not want to break up the flow of my colleague. I am pleased to follow the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan, I be allowed to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for 30 seconds, I know other colleagues want to respond, but I say to my colleague from New York in as sincere a way as I can, I thought his words were powerful and eloquent. They were beautifully written, beautifully said, and very important. I want to associate myself with him. I know I can't speak on it as well as the Senator did, so I associate myself with what he said. It is just the way I think about it and feel about it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me again thank Senator Warner of Virginia for his statement about the crew of the U.S.S. Cole. My understanding is four American sailors have lost their lives, others have been injured. As a Senator from Minnesota, I want to express my support and my concern. I do not think we have as yet knowledge of who is behind this. It certainly looks like a well-planned terrorist attack, but I echo the words of my colleague from the State of Virginia. The chair of the committee, Senator Warner, and the ranking minority member, Senator Levin, are two of the best Senators in the Senate. Therefore, I want to speak with a little bit of humility because I don't want this to come off as arrogant. I want to express my opposition to this bill. I don't think there will be many opposed, but I want to give this at least my best effort. Let me start out with my own framework. I believe part of the definition of real national security for our Nation is a strong military, but I also think part of the definition of real national security is the security of our local communities--whether it is affordable housing, whether it is affordable child care, whether it is good health care for citizens, or whether we have the best education for every child. It is within this framework that I rise to speak against this bill. The bill provides $309.8 billion for the military. That is $4.5 billion more than the administration's request and $19 billion above fiscal year 2000 levels. Yet the majority party could not find the additional money for more school counselors, could not find additional money for Head Start. One of the scandals is we keep talking about how important the early years are, we keep talking about how important the Head Start Program is to give children a head start. Yet I think we provide funding for about 3 or 4 percent of the children who could benefit from the Early Head Start Program. The majority party could find the additional $4.5 billion, above and beyond the administration's request, but they could not find the additional money for affordable housing. They could not find additional money up to this time for prescription drug benefits for elderly people. It is a matter of priorities. I think as long as our country is first in the world when it comes to spending on the military but ranks 10th in the world when it comes to spending on education, we will never achieve our strength and our greatness. The cry for more money, the rallying cry from some of my colleagues for more Pentagon funding, was for readiness. We have heard about the crisis in readiness, lack of spare parts, inadequate training funds, difficulty retaining pilots and other key personnel, declining quality of life. I am all for the part of this budget that increases funding in these decisive areas. But if you look at the category of spending with the largest increase from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001, it is procurement of weapons. It is not military readiness, with an 11- percent increase; or operations and maintenance, which funds most of the readiness programs, which goes up 4 percent; or family housing, on the other hand, which actually declines by 3 percent; military construction declines by 6 percent. These figures are from the Pentagon budget authority. But the real increase in the funding--if you look at fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2005, procurement increases 39 percent. This is the largest increase in this Pentagon budget. In fact, 53 percent of the increase in budget authority during this 6-year period goes to new weapons. I have to ask the question in this post-cold war period, in an opportunity to redefine some of our priorities and to redefine national security and to have a strong military, but also to make sure that we concern ourselves with national security as in the security of local communities--good education, good health care, good jobs, affordable housing. It seems to me this budget does much more for the military contractors than it needs to do, is beyond the President's request. And, frankly, we are in a zero sum game. You cannot have it all. Money spent in one area is money not spent in another area. I believe that overall what we have before us in this piece of legislation, and the amount of money it calls for, for the Pentagon and military, reflects some distorted priorities. It is for that reason I will oppose this conference report. Related to this question I have raised about budget priorities is an amendment which was dropped from the conference report. This was an amendment I offered, which was accepted, which asked that we in the Congress do a careful study of child poverty under welfare ``reform'' to find out how children are doing, to find out whether not only has there been a decrease in poverty of children but among those children who are poor--from the last report we received--we have an increase in poverty among children who are poor. I wanted us to do an honest policy evaluation. Over the last 2 years I have offered this amendment four or five times, and every time it is dropped in conference committee--every single time. It seems to me we would want to know, as we move into the reauthorization of the welfare bill, what this dramatic decline in the welfare roll means. Any fool can throw people off the welfare rolls. That is easy. The question is, Where are the mothers and where are the children and are they better off? Some I think are better off. For that I am grateful. Some have living-wage jobs and can support their families, and that is what it was supposed to be about. But I am telling my colleagues, I traveled some of the country--I am going to do more over the next 2 years because obviously we need to know what is happening out there--and it is my observation that the vast majority of the women and children are in the following situation: These women are working but now they are working poor. These jobs do not provide anywhere close to our salaries or even close to what would be called a living wage; in other words, on what they can support their families. From the studies of Families USA and what I have seen with my own eyes, too many of these women no longer have medical assistance for themselves and their children and in all too many situations--Yale and Berkeley did a study on the child care situation--2- and 3-year-olds-- these are mothers with children--are in child care situations which at best are inadequate and quite often are dangerous. We have seen, roughly speaking, a 25- to 30-percent decline in food stamp participation, the major safety net for poor children. I want to know what is happening out there. I would think colleagues would want to know, but sometimes we do not want to know what we do not want to know. For the fourth or fifth time, this amendment has been dropped, and I have come to the floor to express my opposition to the dropping of this amendment. The majority party found $4 billion more than the administration requested, I am sorry, but is unwilling to do an honest policy evaluation of the welfare bill, its effect on children, the poverty of children, and whether we can do better for poor children. That is a misplaced priority. When we come back next year--we will be moving into the period of time of reauthorization of this welfare bill--one of my commitments as a Senator from Minnesota is to do everything I can to focus the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, on an honest policy evaluation of what is happening to poor women and poor children in our country. I can think of better uses for some of this money in the Pentagon budgets as opposed to new weapons systems, for example. I can see putting more into child care. I can see putting more into education. I can see putting more into expanded health care coverage. I can see putting more into affordable housing. I can see putting more into making sure there is long-term care so elderly people are able to stay at home and live at home with dignity as opposed to being forced into nursing homes. I can see some other priorities. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was passed by the Senate as an amendment, was taken out of the conference. In the United States of America, surely we as a people no longer accept the proposition that a citizen can be killed or injured because of his or her race, national origin, religion, gender, disability and, yes, sexual orientation. Not that long ago, James Byrd was dragged to death by the most vicious of racists, and he was killed for only one reason: He was black. It was less than a year ago that two men were killed and three others were injured in Pittsburgh when a gunman shot them down for only one reason: They were white. It was only a few months before that when a man went on a shooting spree in Chicago aiming at people for one reason and one reason alone, and that was because they were either black, Asian or Jewish. Let's not forget Matthew Shepard who was killed in Wyoming for one reason and one reason only: He was gay. The amendment we adopted in the Senate with 57 votes and was taken out of this conference report would have permitted Federal intervention in serious violent crimes. In addition, the crimes that would have been covered would have included gender, disability, and sexual orientation. There is not one Senator who can say that Matthew Shepard was not murdered because of hate. By failing to keep this amendment in this conference report, we have communicated a message that says we still tolerate these hate crimes; we are not willing to take strong action. The majority party took that amendment out of this conference report. The majority party took the hate crimes amendment out of this conference report, and I think we have communicated a terrible message to the country. Hate crimes are a kind of terrorism. They are not just meant to intimidate the victim but all those who belong to the group and make all of the people victims. They are meant to instill fear. They are meant to communicate the idea that one group of people has supremacy over others. They are meant to dehumanize people. They say not just to the victim but to all those who are like the victim: You are vulnerable and you could be next because you are gay, lesbian, transgender, or bisexual; you could be next because of your disability; you could be next because of your religion; you could be next because of the color of your skin; you could be next because of your national origin. And they took this amendment out of this conference report. I believe that is shameful, and that is another reason I am going to vote against this conference report. Mr. President, I have 30 minutes reserved. How much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Alabama, I will take a couple more minutes to speak on one other related issue, not so much to this conference report. While I am on the floor of the Senate, I express my disappointment--I have to do this with a little bit of a twinkle in my eye--at the eleventh hour attempt by some of my colleagues to ram through--and this is not, I say to the Senator from Virginia, in this conference report; this is separate--an ill-conceived, unjust, and unbalanced ``bankruptcy reform'' through the Senate by co-opting an unrelated conference report, although I am not surprised. The fact that the House and the Senate Republican leadership is willing to trample the traditions of the Senate in their rush to pass this legislation speaks to the tremendous clout and the financial resources of the financial services industry. Make no mistake about it, that is why I say I have to have a twinkle in my eye. This is a tactic straight out of ``Invasion of the Body Snatchers.'' Listen to this. House and Senate Republicans have taken a secretly negotiated bankruptcy bill--I am sorry; I do no damage to the truth when I say this--and they have stuffed it into a hollowed-out husk of the State Department authorization bill. Not one provision of the original State Department bill remains. Of course, the State Department authorization is the last of many targets. The majority leader has talked about doing this on an appropriations bill, on a crop insurance bill, on the electronic signature bill, on the Violence Against Women Act. So desperate are we to serve the big banks and the credit card companies that no bill has been safe from this controversial baggage. Colleagues, there is no question that this is a significantly worse bill than the one that passed the Senate. In fact, there is no pretending that this bill is designed to curb real abuse of the bankruptcy code. Does the bill take on wealthy debtors who file frivolous claims and shield their assets in multimillion-dollar mansions? No. Let me repeat that--no. It guts the cap on the homestead exemption which was adopted by the Senate. Nor does this bill contain another amendment adopted by the Senate, that Senator Schumer worked on, that would prevent violators of the Fair Access to Clinic Entrances Act--which protects women's health clinics--from using the bankruptcy system to walk away from their punishment. Indeed, colleagues, this legislation would deny a fresh start to low- and moderate-income families who file bankruptcy out of desperation. It has an arbitrary test making it very hard for people to go to chapter 7. But at the same time, this legislation has no balance, does not hold the credit card industry accountable, does not hold the financial institutions accountable. It has now been stuffed into a hollowed-out State Department bill, and it is going to come over to the Senate, I suppose, sometime around Wednesday. I just want to say--I could go into all of the detail, but I will not--should the majority leader follow through on this strategy, I announce I will use my procedural rights as a Senator, of course, as any other Senator would, to slow down this conference report. The conference report would be hard to stop, but we could take at least a couple of days of the Senate's precious remaining time to consider the ramifications of this legislation on working families. And finally----

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to hear from my colleague from Virginia. To expedite matters, included with my statement about this so-called bankruptcy reform bill I just will include a letter from the White House. This is from John Podesta, announcing that the President will veto this bankruptcy bill that has been stuffed into a hollowed-out State Department authorization bill. The President just makes it clear that none of the fundamental problems with this piece of legislation has been addressed and that he fully intends to veto this. I thank the White House for their very strong support. The President is doing the right thing. So I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia was gracious enough to say I may want to respond. Other colleagues want to speak, and I believe the exchange between my two colleagues covered the ground and spoke to the question I raised. If I had spoken, I would have said what Senator Levin said. I just wouldn't have said it as well. I appreciate the forthrightness of the Senator from Virginia, his directness and, as always, his intellectual honesty.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to change my vote to ``no.'' It does not change the outcome, most definitely.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President. I rise to speak about a provision in the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, which was passed by the Senate today. Specifically, I want to speak about the substantial backlog of civil rights claims that have been filed with the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, Office of Civil Rights, OCR. As my colleagues know, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. For thirty-five years, this law has been a cornerstone of our nation's civil rights protections. To better implement Title VI in federal environmental programs, President Clinton issued an Executive Order in 1994 requiring each federal agency ``to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations.'' Under EPA's Title VI implementing regulations, 40 CFR Section 7, EPA- funded permitting agencies are prohibited from taking actions in the permitting process that are intentionally discriminatory or have a discriminatory effect based on race, color, or national origin. Under these regulations OCR is required to ``promptly'' investigate all complaints filed under Title VI unless all parties agree to a delay [40 CFR Section 7.120]. OCR is first required to initiate complaint proceedings within 5 days of receipt of a complaint [40 CFR Section 7.120(d)]. Then it must review the complaint for acceptance, rejection, or referral to another agency and make a determination within 25 days of the receipt of the complaint [40 CFR Section 7.120(d)(1)]. If a complaint is accepted, EPA must make a preliminary finding in the matter, including recommendations, if any, for achieving voluntary compliance, and OCR must notify the recipient of these finding within 180 days of the start of the complaint investigation. [40 CFR Section 7.120(d)(2)]. Unfortunately according to the OCR's most recent log of cases filed on October 4, 2000, 103 Title VI claims have been filed since September 1993. Of these, over half, 56 cases, are still pending. The remainder were either rejected or dismissed over jurisdictional issues. Eleven of the still active cases have been pending for 5 years or more, without resolution. Only one case has been resolved by a decision of the OCR, which found that there was not a legally recognizable ``adverse impact'' on the community and denied the community's request for reconsideration. To further complicate resolution for these civil rights claims, in 1998 a rider was inserted in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill that blocked the implementation or administration of the interim Guidance to enforce Title VI claims issued on February 5, 1998. This rider has effectively stopped the EPA from investigating and responding to claims of race or national origin discrimination that have been filed with the Agency after October, 1998. That same rider has been on all subsequent VA/HUD bills, including this one. This summer the EPA revised it's Guidance, which was noticed in the Federal Register for public comment. The revision is titled ``Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits.'' I am pleased that the rider, included in this VA/HUD Appropriations bill, would not apply to the EPA's revised Guidance. However a there still remains a large backlog of cases to be acted upon. There were 35 complaints filed after the first rider in 1998. To date only one has been accepted for investigation. Although the step of acceptance or rejection is required under Federal Regulation within 25 days of the receipt of the complaint, 34 of these complaints are more than 25 days old and over half of them, 20 of 34 cases, have been ``under review'' for more than a year. The EPA's own regulations are clear, regardless of any Guidance. Furthermore, the rider does not account for the entire backlog of unresolved complaints. There are still 21 complaints pending that were filed before the rider blocking the EPA's 1998 Guidance went into effect. Of these cases, 19 have been accepted, but no preliminary findings have been made. Two cases are still under review after 4\1/2\ years, and as you will recall the deadline in the federal regulations for accepting cases is 25 days from the initial complaint date. And again, half of the still active cases,--11 of 21--have been pending for 5 years or more, without resolution. It appears the EPA is out of compliance with it's own regulations for processing civil rights complaints, both for cases filed before and after the effect of the rider. While the rider has no doubt been a hindrance to the Agency, it clearly does not absolve the Agency of its responsibilities under the 36 year old civil rights law. And the Agency's own regulations lay out a clear framework for processing and acting on complaints. Several environmental and civil rights organizations have written to Congressional leaders on this backlog. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee from the NAACP, and a letter from the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund be entered into the Record following my statement. In closing, I am pleased the Administration appears to be working to finalize the revised Guidance. However, I remain concerned that the EPA has established no clear way of dealing with the backlog of civil rights claims that have built up over the past seven years. Therefore, as a Senator from Minnesota, I call on the EPA, as expeditiously as possible, to resolve the many backlogged civil rights claims, several of which have been pending for years. Only then will we be able to fulfill the intent of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague, Senator Brownback, for his very gracious remarks. It has been an honor to work with him on this legislation. I think a very strong friendship has come out of this effort. There are some times when we can work and reach out and have the most interesting and I hope important coalition. Working with Senator Brownback, Sharon Payt, and Karen Knutson has been the best legislative work. At the end of the day, I believe today we will pass this legislation. Members can feel they have done something really good. They can make a positive difference. I thank Senator Brownback for his great leadership and his great work for each step along the way. In all the negotiations, all the work that has been done, the Senator has been there. I thank the Senator. I want to talk about Charlotte Oldham-Moore and Jill Hickson, who have worked with me and our staff, who have done a great job. There are other people who will be on the floor who put this together--especially the Violence Against Women Act--Senator Leahy, Senator Biden, Senator Hatch, and others, and Sam Gejdenson and Chris Smith have been phenomenal. I thank them for their yeoman work on the House side. I also thank Frank Loy and Harold Koh at the State Department for their work. The trafficking of human beings for forced prostitution and sweatshop labor is a rapidly growing human rights abuse. It is one of the greatest aspects of the globalization of the world economy. The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 is the first piece of legislation to address the widespread practice of the trafficking of men, women, and children into sweatshop labor and sexual bondage. My wife Sheila urged me to do something about this problem several years ago. Consequently, she and I spent time with women trafficked from the Ukraine to work in brothels in Western Europe and the United States. They told us after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the ascendancy of the mob, trafficking in women and girls became a booming industry that destroyed the lives of the youngest and most vulnerable in their home countries. We began work on the bill then, and 3 years later, after extraordinary bipartisan effort, tremendous leadership from Senators Brownback and Leahy, and Sam Gejdenson and Chris Smith, and others, it passed the House with a vote of 371-1. Now it is poised to pass the Senate. Our Government estimates that 2 million people are trafficked each year. Of those, 700,000 women and children, primarily young girls, are trafficked from poor countries to rich countries and sold into slavery, raped, locked up, physically and psychologically abused, with food and health care withheld. Of those, as many as 50,000 immigrants are brought into the United States each year, and they wind up trapped in brothels, sweatshops, and other types of forced labor, abused and too fearful to seek help. Traffickers exploit the unequal status of women and girls, including harmful stereotypes of women as property and sexual objects to be bought and sold. Traffickers have also taken advantage of the demand in our country and others for cheap, unprotected labor. For the traffickers, the sale of human beings is a highly profitable, low-risk enterprise as these women are viewed as expendable and reusable commodities. Overall, profit in the trade can be staggering. It is estimated that the size of this business is $7 billion annually, only surpassed by that of the illegal arms trade. Trafficking has become a major source of new income for criminal rings. It is coldly observed that drugs are sold once while a woman or a child can be sold 10 or 20 times a day. In the United States, Thai traffickers who incarcerated Thai women and men in sweatshops in El Monte, CA, are estimated to have made $8 million in 6 years. Further, Thai traffickers who enslaved Thai women in a New York brothel made about $1.5 million over 1 year and 3 months. Last year, Albanian women were kidnapped from Kosovo refugee camps and trafficked to work in brothels in Turkey and Europe. Closer to home, organized crime has trafficked Russian and Ukranian women into sexually exploitive work in dozens of cities in the United States of America. Just next door, law enforcement authorities suspected mafia involvement in the gruesome murder of a Russian woman trafficked to Maryland. All of these cases reflect a new condition: Women whose lives have been disrupted by civil wars or fundamental changes in political geography, such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union or the violence in the Balkans, have fallen prey to traffickers. Seeking financial security, many innocent persons are lured by traffickers' false promises of a better life and lucrative jobs abroad. Seeking this better life, they are lured by local advertisements for good jobs in foreign countries at wages they could never imagine at home. However, when they arrive, these victims are often stripped of their passports, held against their will, some in slave-like conditions, in the year 2000. Rape, intimidation, and violence are commonly employed by traffickers to control their victims and to prevent them from seeking help. Through physical isolation and psychological trauma, traffickers and brothel owners imprison women in a world of economic and sexual exploitation that imposes a constant threat of arrest and deportation, as well as violent reprisals by the traffickers themselves to whom the women must pay off ever-growing debts. That is the way this works. Many brothel owners actually prefer foreign women, women who are far from help and from home, who do not speak the language, precisely because of the ease of controlling them. Most of these women never imagined they would enter such a hellish world, having traveled abroad to find better jobs or to see the world. Many in their naivete believe nothing bad can happen to them in the rich and comfortable countries such as Switzerland or Germany or the United States. Others are less naive, but they are desperate for money and opportunity. But they are no less hurt by the trafficker's brutal grip. Trafficking rings are often run by criminals operating through nominally reputable agencies. In some cases overseas, police and immigration officials of other nations participate and benefit from the trafficking. Lack of awareness or complacency among government officials such as border control and consular offices contributes to the problem. Furthermore, traffickers are rarely punished, as official policies often inhibit victims from testifying against their traffickers, making trafficking a highly profitable, low-risk business venture for some. Trafficking abuses are occurring not just in far-off lands but here at home in America as well. The INS has discovered 250 brothels in 26 different cities which involve trafficking victims. This is from a CIA report. This is the whole problem of no punishment--being able to do this with virtual impunity. In a 1996 trafficking case involving Russian and Ukrainian women who answered ads to be au pairs, sales clerks and waitresses, and were forced to provide sexual services and live in a massage parlor in Bethesda, MD, the Russian-American massage parlor owner was fined. He entered a plea bargain and charges were dropped with the restriction that he would not operate a business again in Montgomery County. The women, who had not been paid any salary and were charged $150 for their housing, were deported or left the United States voluntarily. There was no charge at all. Teenage Mexican girls were held in slavery in Florida and the Carolinas, and they were forced to submit to prostitution. Russian and Latvian women were forced to work in nightclubs in the Midwest. According to charges filed against the traffickers, the traffickers picked the women up upon their arrival at the airport, seized their documents and return tickets, locked them in hotels and beat them. This is in our country. The women were told that if they refused to work in sexually exploitive conditions, the Russian Mafia would kill their families. Furthermore, over a 3-year period, hundreds of women from the Czech Republic who answered advertisements in Czech newspapers for modeling were ensnared in an illegal prostitution ring. Trafficking in persons for labor is an enormous problem as well. The INS has also worked on cases involving South Asian children smuggled into the United States to work in slavery-like conditions. In one case, about 100 Indian children, some of them as young as 9 or 10, were brought into New York and shuffled around the country to work in construction and restaurants--ages 9 and 10, in the United States; today, in the United States--2000. Some of the children appear to have been sold by their parents to the traffickers. In Woodbine, MD, a pastor bought Estonian children, ages 14 to 17, promising them they would attend Calvery Chapel Christian Academy, but then forcing them to clean roach-invested apartments and to do construction. The children worked 15 hours a day. The children were threatened and punishments included denial of food and being forced to stand in one spot for prolonged periods. The bitter irony is that quite often victims are punished more harshly than the traffickers because of their illegal immigration status, their serving as prostitutes, or their lack of documents, which the traffickers have confiscated in order to control the victims. A review of the trafficking cases showed that the penalties were light and did not reflect the multitude of human rights abuses perpetrated against these women. In a Los Angeles case, traffickers kidnapped a Chinese woman, raped her, forced her into prostitution, posted guards to control her movements, and burned her with cigarettes. Nevertheless, the lead defendants received 4 years and the other defendants received 2 and 3 years. That is what they received. In a tragic case involving over 70 Thai laborers who had been held against their will, systematically abused, and made to work 20-hour shifts in a sweatshop, the seven defendants received sentences ranging from 4 to 7 years with one defendant receiving 7 months. In another case where Asian women were kept physically confined for years with metal bars on the windows, guards, and an electronic monitoring system, and were forced to submit to sex with as many as 400 customers to repay their smuggling debt, the traffickers received 4 years and 9 years--in the United States of America, in the year 2000. I thank Senator Brownback for his work. It is important. A review of the trafficking cases showed that the penalties were light and they did not reflect the multitude of the human rights abuses perpetrated against these women. The statutory minimum for sale into involuntary servitude is only 10 years, whereas the maximum for dealing in small quantities of certain drugs is life. Let me repeat that. The statutory minimum for sale into involuntary servitude is only 10 years, whereas the maximum for dealing in small quantities of certain drugs is life. Few State and Federal laws are aimed directly at people who deliver or control women for the purpose of involuntary servitude or slavery in sweatshops or brothels. Consequently, prosecutors are forced to assemble cases using a hodgepodge of laws, such as document fraud and interstate commerce, and accept penalties that they believe are too light for the offense. Up until this legislation, there was no way for the prosecutors to go after these traffickers. The Victims of Violence and Trafficking Protection Act of 2000 establishes, for the first time, a bright line between the victim and the perpetrator. It punishes the perpetrator and provides a comprehensive approach to solving the root problems that create millions of trafficking victims each year. This legislation aims to prevent trafficking in persons, provide protection and assistance to those who have been trafficked, and strengthen prosecution and punishment for those who are responsible for the trafficking. It is designed to help Federal law enforcement officials expand antitrafficking efforts here and abroad, to expand domestic antitrafficking and victim assistance efforts, and to assist nongovernment organizations, governments and others worldwide, who are providing critical assistance to victims of trafficking. It addresses the underlying problems which fuel the trafficking industry by promoting public antitrafficking awareness campaigns and initiatives in other countries to enhance economic opportunity, such as microcredit lending programs and skills training, for those who are most susceptible to trafficking, and have an outreach so women and girls as young as 10 and 11 know what they might be getting into. It also increases protections and services for trafficking victims by establishing programs designed to assist in the safe reintegration of victims into their communities and ensure that such programs address both the physical and mental health needs of trafficking victims. Imagine what it would be like to be age 12 or 13, a young girl, to go through this. We have, in Minnesota, the Center for the Treatment of Torture Victims. It is a holy place. I have had an opportunity to meet with staff and meet with many men and women who have been helped by this center. These girls, these women, have gone through the same living hell. This legislation also increases protections and services for trafficking victims by providing community support. Furthermore, the bill seeks to stop the practice--and this is so important. I am sitting next to Senator Kennedy who has done so much with the immigration work. This bill seeks to stop the practice of immediately deporting the victims back to potentially dangerous situations by providing them with some interim immigration relief. Victims of ``severe forms of trafficking,'' defined as people who were held against their will-- ``for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage or slavery''--would be eligible for a special visa letting them stay in the country at least through the duration of their captors' prosecution, and perhaps permanently.*****-*****- -Name: -Payroll No. - Folios: -Date: -Subformat: Right now, if you are a Ukrainian girl or woman in a massage parlor in Bethesda, and you step forward to get some help, you are deported. The trafficker is hardly prosecuted. The victim is automatically deported. This provides temporary visa protection. I will give an example. In a 1996 trafficking case involving Russian and Ukrainian women who had answered ads to be au pairs, sales clerks, and waitresses but were forced to provide sexual services and live in a massage parlor in Bethesda, MD, 2 miles from here, the Russian American massage parlor owner was fined. He entered a plea bargain and charges were dropped with the restriction that he would not operate his business again in Montgomery County. The women, who had not been paid any salary, were forced into prostitution, and were charged for their housing, were deported. This legislation toughens current Federal trafficking penalties, criminalizing all forms of trafficking in persons and establishing punishment commensurate with the heinous nature of this crime. The bill establishes specific laws against trafficking. Violators can be sentenced to prison for 20 years to life, depending on the severity of the crime. Yes, if you are trafficking a young girl and forcing her into prostitution, you can face a life sentence. They can also be forced to make full restitution to their victims, paying them the salary that would have been due for their months or years of involuntary service. This bill requires expanded reporting on trafficking, including a separate list of countries which are not meeting minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. It requires the President to suspend ``nonhumanitarian and nontrade'' assistance to only the worst violators on the list of countries which do not meet these minimum standards and who actively condone this human rights abuse. This is a major piece of human rights legislation. This is a major human rights bill. These are the rare governments which are openly complicit in trafficking people across their borders. It allows the Congress to monitor closely the progress of countries in their fight against trafficking, and it gives the administration flexibility to couple its diplomatic efforts to combat trafficking with targeted enforcement action. Finally, the bill provides three generous waivers. By passing the Victims of Violence and Trafficking Act today, this Chamber will take a historic step toward the elimination of trafficking in persons. Thanks to the partnership of Jewish and Evangelical groups, women and human rights organizations, and others, we will take a historic and effective step against organized crime rings and corrupt public officials who each year traffic more than 2 million people into desperate, broken lives of bondage and servitude. Something important is in the air when such a broad coalition of people, including Bill Bennett, Gloria Steinem, Rabbi David Sapperstein, Ann Jordan, and Chuck Colson work together for the passage of this legislation. I am thankful for their support, I am thankful for the support of the administration, and I am thankful for your support today in seeking to end this horrible, widespread, and growing human rights abuse. By way of conclusion, I say to my colleagues, starting with Senator Brownback, I believe with passage of this legislation--I believe it will pass today and the President will sign it--we are lighting a candle. We are lighting a candle for these women and girls and sometime men forced into forced labor. I also think because of the work of so many in the House and the Senate, this can be a piece of legislation that other governments in other parts of the world can pass as well. This is the beginning of an international effort to go after this trafficking, to go after this major, god-awful human rights abuse, this horrible exploitation of women, sometimes men, and of girls. I am very proud of this legislation. I thank my colleague from Kansas. I thank other colleagues as well. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?