Paul Wellstone

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. September 19, 2000: Angel Avila, 17, El Paso, TX; Patrick Codada, 21, Miami, FL; Hugo Contreras, 19, Houston, TX; Jose C. Diaz, 35, Chicago, IL; Alfred Harth, 26, Kansas City, MO; Pedro Hernandez, 23, Chicago, IL; Michael Jones, 18, Baltimore, MD; Michael K. Mills, 17, Chicago, IL; Guadalupe Munoz, 25, Houston, TX; Mario Cardenas Rivera, 18, Minneapolis, MN; Enrique Ortiz Suerez, 12, Minneapolis, MN; Ivory Williams, 18, Detroit, MI; Victor Williams, 17, Detroit, MI; Unidentified Male, 79, Portland, OR; Unidentified Female, 26, Norfolk, VA. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago yesterday. September 18, 2000: Carlos Barrera, 28, Dallas, TX; James D. Bivens, 30, Chicago, IL; Layuvette Daniels, 24, Atlanta, GA; Dedrick Jennings, 21, Memphis, TN; Julian Johnson, 17, Atlanta, GA; Amyn Noormuhammed, 25, Houston, TX; Brogdan Patlakh, 24, Philadelphia, PA; Cassiaus Stuckey, 35, Miami, FL; Rad I. Webster, 27, New Orleans, LA; Darel Whitman, 27, Dallas, TX; Joshua Young, 26, Detroit, MI; Unidentified Male, 48, Long Beach, CA. One victim of gun violence I mentioned, 17-year-old Julian Johnson from Atlanta, was a popular student and football star from Douglass High School in Atlanta. One year ago yesterday, Julian was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting after a football game victory. 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 am pleased to introduce a technical amendment today that, if passed, would ensure that widows and widowers of Hmong veterans who died in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam are also covered by the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act. This critical change would allow such widows to take the United States citizenship test with a translator. Hmong soldiers died at 10 times the rate of American soldiers in the Vietnam war. As many as 20,000 Hmong were killed serving our country. They left behind families with no means of support. They left their loved ones to fend for themselves in a hostile country. Twenty-five years later, we cannot give widows back their loved ones, though their loved ones gave their lives for us. All we can do is honor their service in a way that is long-overdue and give them the tools to become citizens in the nation for which they heroically fought, and died. I want to thank so many of my colleagues who worked so hard to see that the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act pass through Congress and become law. Hmong widows should have been included when this legislation was first passed and they were not. This amendment simply corrects something that should have been done long ago. I urge its swift passage.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is we are now considering amendment No. 4120. Mr. President, this amendment would delay the effective date of PNTR until the President can certify that China has provided a full accounting of activists who have been detained or imprisoned for their labor activities and China is making ``substantial progress'' in releasing these activists from prison. What we are really talking about here is that this amendment calls upon the President to delay the effective date of PNTR until we get from China an accounting of those citizens who have now been imprisoned in China because they have tried to exert their human rights to organize and bargain collectively so they can make a decent wage, so they can work under civilized working conditions, so they can support their families. What we are talking about is we want to see some evidence that China has made substantial progress in releasing these activists from prison. We do not have an exhaustive list of all the labor activists who are now serving prison terms in China. There are many of them about whom the facts are unknown. That is one of the reasons this amendment calls on China to provide a full accounting. But I will draw from what empirical evidence I have as a Senator, a Senator who is concerned about human rights and the right of people to be able to organize their own independent unions. I will draw from two sources of information. The first is the U.S. State Department Human Rights Report which actually confirms that the Chinese Government has been persecuting and incarcerating labor activists. According to the State Department: Independent trade unions are illegal. . . . Following the signing of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in 1997, a number of labor activists petitioned the Government [Chinese Government] to establish free trade unions as allowed under the Covenant. The Government has not approved the establishment of any independent unions to date. Now I will talk about some specific examples. First, I will draw from the State Department report--our State Department report of this past year. Two activists in January were sentenced to reeducation through labor for 18 months and 12 months, respectively. Why were they arrested? They were leading steelworkers in a protest because they had not been paid wages. In January of this year, another activist, the founder of the short- lived Association to Protect the Rights and Interests of Laid-Off Workers, unsuccessfully appealed a 10-year prison sentence he received--10 years in prison. He had been convicted--for what? ``Illegally providing intelligence to a foreign organization.'' What was that foreign organization? It was a Radio Free Asia reporter, and he was talking about worker protests in Hunan Province. For that, a 10- year prison sentence. Do we not care about this? In April of this year workers announced the formation of the Chinese Association to Protect Workers' Rights. In July, a labor activist and China Democracy Party member was arrested on subversion charges. He was arrested after taking part in a workers demonstration outside the provincial government building. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison. In July, another labor activist was sentenced to 10 years, and two others were sentenced to 2 years in prison for subversion. What is it that they had done wrong? They were out there trying to organize workers and the family of one of these activists alleged that the police hung him by his hands in order to extract information on fellow dissidents. In August, another labor activist in China was given a 10-year prison sentence for illegal activities in the 1980s, and more recently he was also thrown in prison because he had organized worker demonstrations. This time he was convicted for providing human rights organizations overseas with information on protests--a 10-year sentence, prison sentence, for a man who had the courage to try to organize people and who then went to human rights organizations overseas with information about worker protests in China. He is now serving 10 years in prison. Don't you believe we could at least ask China to provide us with some credible information that they were now letting these people out of prison; that they were doing something about all of the people who have been imprisoned? This list is compiled by the ILO--Senator Moynihan talked about the ILO yesterday on the floor of the Senate. A 28-year-old worker in a Hunan Province electrical machinery factory, was sentenced in 1989 to a life sentence for hooliganism. His reduced sentence is being served in prison and he now has been told he will get out in the year 2007. A manual worker in Shanghai and a member of the Workers Autonomous Federation was sentenced in 1993 to 9 years in Shanghai prison for organizing a counterrevolutionary group. That from the ILO--my evidence. A worker, organizer of another Workers Autonomous Federation was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment--for hooliganism again. That is the charge any time you demonstrate, any time you try to organize people, any time you have the courage to stand alone and speak up for democracy. Another worker in Hunan, again, Yueyang City in Hunan, organizer of the Workers Autonomous Federation, was sentenced to 15 years--same charge, hooliganism. A 39-year-old lecturer in the Comparative Literature Department at the Language Institute in Beijing was sentenced in 1995 to 20 years in Prison No. 2 for organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary group, and for committing counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement. A 30-year-old medical researcher in the Department of Psychiatry at Beijing's Anding Hospital was sentenced to 17 years in Prison No. 2 in Beijing for organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary group. A 40-year-old worker at a chemicals accelerator fluid plant in Beijing was sentenced to 13 years in Prison No. 2 for organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary group. Another activist was sentenced to 11 years in prison for organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary group. Colleagues, I have other names and other examples. But I think there are several reasons why we should be concerned about the persecution and imprisonment of labor activists in China. First of all, labor rights, the right to organize, recognized by international law, are a fundamental human right. When men and women have the courage to stand up for justice at the workplace, they ought not be locked up, they ought not be treated like animals, they ought not be serving 10-, 12-, 14-year prison sentences in China, and we should speak up for them. Labor rights have been recognized in the documents that enshrine the most basic principles of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 states, ``Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and association. Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his''--and I would add ``or her''-- ``interests.'' In a speech before the Industrial Relations Research Association in Boston this past January, former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz laid out an argument that economic development needs to be seen as part of a transformation of society and that workers organizations, the right to form a union, is key to this developmental process. Do my colleagues know what he was saying? He was saying what we know: Independent unions and the right to form an independent union means you make a better wage; it means you have people who have enough money to consume; it means you are building a middle class; it means you have more economic justice; it means you have more stability. That is what Mr. Stiglitz was trying to say. I will give my colleagues one more example of this brutality. An April 23, 2000, story in the Washington Post reported: The number of labor disputes in China has skyrocketed -- to more than 120,000 in 1999--as workers, in unprecedented numbers get laid off, are paid late, or not paid at all and feel cheated by corrupt officials who sell state property for a pittance to friends, relatives, and colleagues. We are talking about unsafe working conditions. We are talking about low wages. We are talking about the fundamental right of workers in China to organize and the compelling need, I believe, for us to support this right. I will finish in a moment so we can have some votes, although I am anxious to hear whether there is any response. Above and beyond the human rights question, above and beyond the fact that we should not be silent--I have said this for the last several days--above and beyond the fact that we should be willing to speak up and vote for the rights of people to organize independent unions in China, we should not let this Government with impunity put people in prison for 12, 14, or 16 years because they have done nothing more than try to speak up for themselves and form a union so they can make a decent wage and they can support their families. There is another reason. Senator Sarbanes spoke about this on the floor of the Senate the other day. It is this: What we are going to see is not necessarily more exports to China but more investment in China. If we do not speak up for the right of workers to organize in China, China will become the export platform in this new international economy that we talk about, and it will be a magnet for any kind of company that wants to go there that knows it can freely exploit workers, pay workers 3 cents an hour, 10 cents an hour, 6 cents an hour, 20 cents an hour, all of which is happening right now, working people from 8 in the morning until 10 at night with a half an hour, at most, for a break. That is what we are going to see. I do not know how many Senators will consider this before they vote, but if you do not want to vote for this amendment for human rights for workers in China, vote for this amendment for the people you represent in your own States because I am telling you--and this is just the future I am predicting--that our failure to adopt these amendments, our failure to focus on human rights, our failure to vote on human rights, our failure to vote on religious freedom, our failure to vote on the rights of people to organize and bargain collectively is going to lead to a new international economy where China, with the size of the country and the population, will become a magnet, it will become a low- wage export platform, and the people in your States are going to say to you: Where were you when you were asked to vote for us? Now you are saying to us, Senator, that you want us to compete against people who get paid as little as 3 cents an hour under the most brutal, exploitative labor conditions, and now we are losing our jobs as companies are leaving our States to go to China, and you had a chance to vote for the right for people to organize in China so they could make a decent wage and those workers would not be played off against us, and you didn't vote for it? My colleagues should vote for this amendment because a vote for this amendment is not only a vote for human rights in China, not only a vote for the right of people to organize in China, but, most important of all, what this amendment is really about is simply saying to the President, before going forward with normal trade relations with China, at least--and I want to read this again--at the very minimum, the President needs to certify China has provided a full accounting of these activists who are detained or imprisoned for their labor activities. That is all the amendment asks, and China can show it is making substantial progress in releasing these activists from prison. That is what this amendment is about. In a broader sense, this amendment is also about the right of people to organize and bargain collectively, and this is an amendment that says why should the people we represent in our States be put in a situation where they lose their jobs and where our communities lose businesses that go to China because they know they can pay miserably low wages, where people wind up in prison if they should dare get a better job, where they can actually export products made with prison labor, and we are not voting for amendments that give the people we represent in our own States some comfort that they themselves are not going to lose their jobs because of these absolutely brutal working conditions. I do not think it is too much to vote for an amendment that asks for only one little piece of this. We will delay the effective date of PNTR until the President can certify that the Chinese Government has provided a full accounting of those people who have been detained or imprisoned for doing nothing more than trying to organize or trying to stand up for themselves and their families, and some accounting that this Government is releasing these innocent men and women from prison who have done nothing more than protest deplorable working conditions or tried to form an independent union. That is what this amendment is about. I conclude this way, which is the way this debate started. We are forever being told that we live in a global economy, and that is true. For some reason, too many of my colleagues do not want to recognize the implications of this. For me, if we are now working and living in a global economy, that means if we are truly concerned about human rights, we can no longer just concern ourselves with human rights at home. If we are truly concerned about religious freedom, we can no longer only concern ourselves with religious freedom at home. If we are truly concerned about the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively, and earn a better living for themselves and their families, then we can no longer concern ourselves with labor rights only at home. If we are truly concerned about the environment, we can no longer concern ourselves with the environment only at home. I will say it one final time: The men and women in this world, who have been engaged in human rights issues, have long understood an essential, basic truth which is this: Americans, Senators can never be indifferent to the desperate circumstances of exploited and abused people in the far reaches of the globe. When the most basic human rights and basic freedoms of others are infringed or endangered, we are diminished by our failure to speak out. This amendment is a test case of whether or not we are willing to speak out. I say to my colleagues, since this is my last amendment, I believe we have made a big mistake--we will see what history shows us-- in the rush to pass this piece of legislation. I think we have made a mistake because I believe the consequences, over the next 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years will be very harsh. I believe the economics in this global economy we are all talking about will become a major axis of American politics. I believe the people that we represent are going to want to know where each of us stood. I believe we should have been making the effort to make sure this new global economy--with China being such a major actor--would be an economy not only working for big multinational corporations and big financial institutions, which I know are very interested in passing this, but it would also be a global economy that works for working people, a global economy that works for human rights, a global economy that works for children, a global economy that works for the environment. I will say--and I am sorry because none of us can be sure we are right; and I understand that--I have not, in the course of this debate, seen very many Senators come out and present any empirical evidence to the contrary of what I have had to say about these basic rights of people. Why is it that we just turn our gaze away from this? I do not understand it. I also think we have made a mistake in another way, I say to the Presiding Officer. I think we have made a mistake in the stampede to pass this legislation, in this rush to passage, in this argument that we dare not even pass an amendment. Even if it deals with the right of people to practice their religion, even if it puts the U.S. Senate and our country and our Government on the side of human rights, we cannot do that because then it would go to conference committee. I do not understand that argument, not when you think about what the stakes are, not when you think about this in personal terms. Whatever happened to the voice of the Senate? Whatever happened to the strong clarion call for the Government of China, and all governments in the world, to respect the human rights of their citizens? Whatever happened to our justice voice? Whatever happened to our human rights voice? Why were these concerns trumped by this headlong stampede and rush to pass this legislation? I conclude my remarks this way: We will see what happens in the future. I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. I hope Senators will vote for this amendment. I yield the floor. (Disturbance in the galleries.)

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have a very quick response to my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in the Washington Post, dated January 11, 2000, entitled ``No Workers' Paradise'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will read a couple of paragraphs from the article. This was written by John Pomfret: China once advertised itself as a socialist workers' paradise. But in its mad rush to become a modern industrialized nation in the 20 years since economic reforms opened doors to the West, China's cutthroat system has victimized average laborers. Then it goes on to say: ``Since 1980, labor standards in China have gotten worse,'' said Anita Chan, a senior research fellow of the Australian Research Council and an expert on China's labor issues. I could go on and on. I say to my colleague from Delaware, there are three parts to his argument that trouble me. First of all, this amendment has everything in the world to do with what is going on in China. This is not an amendment about labor law reform in the United States. That is an amendment I will bring to the floor at the very beginning of the next Congress. We will have a full debate about the right of people to organize in our country. This is about China. This is about labor conditions in China. This amendment is about people who have been imprisoned because they have done nothing more than to speak out and protest against working conditions or trying to form a union. This amendment just says, before the President goes forward, let's certify that China is willing to let these people out of prison, and that we are going to get some certification of some progress in that area. That is all this amendment is about. The second thing I would say to my colleague from Delaware --we have had some of this discussion before--is that even if I believed he was right--and I think he is wrong--that actually we are going to see more exports that will lead to higher wages for American citizens, I do not believe people in the United States of America would be comfortable with the proposition that is being made on the floor of the Senate, at least by some, that since there is profit to be made, and more money to be made, and maybe more workers will do better in our country--which I will question in a moment--we should, therefore, turn a blind eye, turn our gaze away from these deplorable conditions; that we should not be concerned about the persecution of people who are trying to practice their religion; that we should not be concerned about human rights; that we should not be concerned about people who are imprisoned because they are trying to form a labor union. I do not believe most people in Minnesota or people in the country believe that. Most people in Minnesota and the country believe these issues should be of concern to the U.S. Senators. We, after all, are representing people in our Nation. I think it is a very sad day when the United States of America refuses to speak out for human rights in any country. Indeed, this will be a debate that will go on. What will happen is, given the fact that we have Wal-Marts paying about 13 cents an hour-- and I have given examples of companies paying far less--China is going to become the export platform where people know that if they should dare to try to organize a union, they are going to be thrown in prison. So all these multinational corporations have carte blanche approval to go to China, pay hardly anything in wages, have people working under deplorable working conditions, and we are going to lose jobs. We are not going to see a lot more exports. We will see a lot more investment. What better place to invest for some of the multinational corporations than a country where you know you don't have to worry about paying good wages, you know you don't have to worry about safe working conditions because, if people dare to protest or challenge this for the sake of themselves or their families, they wind up in prison. I see a very different economic future. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may we have order in the Chamber before I start?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have cited both the State Department Report on Human Rights and the International Labor Organization report this past year of courageous men and women who have done nothing more than protest deplorable working conditions and try to organize and bargain collectively and are now in prison. This amendment simply says that PNTR depends upon an accounting from the Chinese Government about these people who are in prison and helps Congress in releasing these people from prison. I say to my colleagues, I believe during this debate we have put human rights concerns aside; we have put the rights of people who practice religion aside. These questions dealing with human rights, whether people are free to practice their religion, or whether people are free to protest deplorable working conditions, are important concerns. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak out on these. I hope I will get a good vote.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Kennedy speaks, it be in order for me to bring my amendment to the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Maine wants 5 minutes to respond. I ask unanimous consent that after my colleague from Maine speaks, my colleague from California have 5 minutes as in morning business, and that I then be able to introduce the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor. I shall not take up all of our time. I am certainly interested in what the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from New York have to say in this debate. First, I thank my colleague, Senator Helms from North Carolina, for offering this amendment. Also, there are probably not too many times I can remember over my 9\1/2\ years in the Senate that I have been a cosponsor of a Helms amendment, but I am very proud to support this amendment and to speak, debate, and advocate with him on this question. I say to my colleague from North Carolina and other Senators as well, I want to guard against appearing to be self-righteous about this, but I feel strongly about the question before us. I feel strongly about this amendment which says that China ought to abide by basic human rights standards. We ought to insist on that before we automatically extend normal trade relations with China, before we give up our right to annually review normal trade relations with China. Before I speak in giving this some context and talking about why, let me, one more time--I have heard some discussion on the floor and also seen in the press discussion about this debate--try to correct the record. No one is arguing that we should now have an embargo on trade with China. Nobody is arguing for a boycott. Nobody is saying that we should not have trade with China. We do; we will. It is a record trade deficit, as a matter of fact. That is not the issue. Nobody is arguing that we should have no economic ties with China at all. We do; we will. The question is whether or not we give up our annual right to review trade relations with China, which is what little leverage we have as a nation, as a country, to speak up about the violations of human rights, to speak up for religious freedom in China. That is the question before us. I have always been intensely interested in human rights questions, whether it is as to China or whether it is as to any other country. I am sorry to say on the floor of the Senate that there are some 70 governments in the world today that are engaged in the systematic torture of their citizens. I think it is important for the Senate, I think it is important for our Government, I think it is important for the American people, to speak up about these kinds of basic violations of people's human rights. I say it for two reasons. First of all, I come from a family where my father was born in the Ukraine; then lived in the Far East; then lived in China before coming to the United States of America at age 17 in 1914, 3 years before the revolution in Russia. He thought he could go back, and then the Bolsheviks took over. His parents told him: Don't go back. And all his family, from all I can gather, were probably murdered by Stalin. All contact was broken off. No longer did my father receive any letters from his family. He never saw them again. I say to my colleague from North Carolina--I am getting a little personal before getting into the arguments--at the end of my dad's life we were trying to take care of him so we would go over and spend the night with him. He had lived in this country for, oh, almost 70 years. He spoke fluent English. I don't know that I detected even any accent. But it was amazing; all of his dreams--they were nightmares; there was shouting and screaming--were in Russian. None of it was in English. He lived in this country all of those years; I only heard him speak English--talk about the child being father of man or mother of woman-- and I think that is what happens when you are separated from your family at such a young age; your family is probably murdered. You never can go back to see them. You can never see your family again. I believe strongly in human rights. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his leadership on this question. Then I had a chance to meet Wei Jingsheng. I say to my colleague, you know Wei very well. Here is a man who spent, I think, about 17 years in prison, several years in solitary confinement. What was the crime that he committed? The crime he committed was to continue to write and speak out for democracy and freedom in his country. That was the crime he committed. I say to my colleagues that I really believe the rush for the money and the focus on the money to be made by our trade policy with China within the new global economics that we talk about--this kind of rush for money, this focus on commercial ties on the money to be made has trumped our concerns about human rights, trumped our concerns, whether it is a Buddhist or a Christian or a Jew, you name it--it makes no difference--about whether people can even practice their religion without winding up in prison, trumped our concerns about whether or not we have a relationship with a country that has broken the 1992 and 1994 agreements where they said they would not export products to our country made by prison labor in the so-called reeducation labor camps, trumped our concerns about all of the women and men who were imprisoned because of the practice of their religion or because they spoke out for democracy, trumped our concerns about women and men who tried to improve their working conditions and found themselves serving 3 years, 8 years, 14 years, 15 years, trumped our concerns about a country that has more prison labor camps--it is like the equivalent of the gulags in Russia, in the former Soviet Union. And we do not want to speak out on this? We don't want to at least say: wait a minute, we reserve our right, when it comes to normal trade relations, to insist that you live up to just basic standards of decency? We reserve our right to speak up for human rights. We reserve our right to speak up for religious freedom. We reserve our right to speak up against products that are exported to our country made by prison labor. We reserve our right to speak up for the right of people in China--and people all over the world--to bargain collectively to try to improve their standard of living. We do not want to consider any of that? We do not consider any of that? I think we diminish ourselves, I say to Senator Helms, when we do not support the kind of amendment the Senator has brought to the floor. I say to my colleagues, I hope there will be strong support for this amendment. I have heard a number of Senators--all of whom I like, all of whom I like a lot--who have said, first of all: We cannot isolate ourselves. We are not isolating ourselves. All we are saying is, don't we want to at least keep our leverage, so that we continue to have what little leverage we have to annually review our trade relations to make sure China lives up to the trade agreements, lives up to the human rights standards? Then the other argument is: We have had all this trade with China, and it is so important, that, actually, when you automatically have trade relations with China, you promote human rights. I have heard that said at least 10, 15 times. But I say to Senators, where is your evidence? I will tell you, if you look at the State Department reports of this year and last year, they talk about an absolutely brutal atmosphere in China. Your evidence certainly is not our own State Department report about human rights. Is your evidence the commission that we appointed, the Commission on International Religious Freedom, chaired by Rabbi Saperstein? They said, on the basis of their careful examination, we should not automatically renew trade relations with China because of the brutality, the denial to people of their right to practice their religion. I say to Senators, where is your evidence that we have had this trade with China and it has led to more freedom and less violation of human rights? Where is your evidence for that? You do not have any evidence. I have not heard one Senator come out here with any evidence. My evidence, on behalf of this amendment, is that according to the State Department--this is last year's report-- The Government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, and denial of due process. That is the evidence. Hundreds of thousands of people languish in jails and prison camps merely because, I say to my colleague from North Carolina, they dare to practice their Christian, Buddhist, or Islamic faith. Respected international human rights organizations have documented hundreds of thousands of cases--hundreds of thousands of cases--of arbitrary imprisonment, torture, house arrest, or death at the hands of the Government. That is the record. I welcome any Senator to come out here and present other evidence to the contrary. In recent months, we have witnessed--and I heard my colleague from North Carolina talk about this--a brutal crackdown against the Falun Gong, a harmless Buddhist sect. According to international news media reports, at least 50,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested and detained, more than 5,000 have been sentenced to labor camps without trial, and over 500 have received prison sentences in show trials. Detainees are often tortured, and at least 33 practitioners of this religion have died in Government custody. Senators, we are silent about this. Chinese courts recently sentenced three leading members of the Chinese Democracy Party, an open opposition party. That is what we believe in. We believe in our country people should have the right to join parties. They should have a right to speak out. They should have the right to run for office, and they certainly should not wind up in prison. Three leading members of the Chinese Democracy Party, an open opposition party, were sentenced to terms of 11, 12, and 13 years. Their crime was ``for conspiring to subvert state power.'' Charges against these three political activists included helping to organize the party, receiving funds from abroad, promoting independent trade unions, using e-mail to distribute materials abroad, and giving interviews to foreign reporters. That is their crime. They have been tried in closed trials with no procedural safeguards. The Government has crushed the party by doling out huge prison sentences to any man or woman who should dare to form their own political party. I would think if there was any example that would resonate with every single Senator here, regardless of party, it would be this. My colleague from North Carolina already talked about Ms. Kadeer's case. I will not go over that. I will just say to Senators, I hope that on this amendment we will get your support. With all due respect, I hope that you do not make the following argument because I don't think it works. I hope you do not make the argument: No, I am going to turn my gaze away from all of these human rights abuses. I am going to turn my gaze away from supporting religious freedom. I am going to turn my gaze away from this record of brutality. I am going to turn my gaze away from the extrajudicial killings and torture. I am going to turn my gaze away from human rights because if an amendment passes, this will go to conference committee. We have conference committees all the time. That is the way we operate. That is our legislative process. We have a conference committee and then it reports back. With all the support for this overall bill, the conference committee would meet, the bill would come back, and then we would have a vote. But to say to people in our States, we couldn't vote for what was right, we couldn't vote for this amendment which was all about human rights, which is what our country is about, because, you see, it might go to conference committee and we have to have a bill with the exact same language between the House and the Senate, people will look at you and say: Senator, just vote for what is right. I say to my colleagues, vote for what is right. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take a couple of minutes to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, let me say to the Senator from New York that there is a bit of irony in his remarks because I had intended in this debate to also quote the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights of the ILO which states: All members, even if they have not ratified the convention in question, have an obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the International Labor Organization to respect, promote, and to realize in good faith, in accordance with the ILO Constitution, the principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those conventions; namely freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. I could not agree more with my colleague from New York. It is very relevant language. Here is the problem: the ILO has no enforcement problem. Here is the problem: China has belonged to the ILO since 1918. How much longer are we supposed to wait for the Chinese Government to live up to this? This has been a pretty long time now. My colleague raises a very fair question. Why is this amendment necessary? Given this declaration of principles, and given the establishment of the ILO, my point is: (a) no enforcement power; (b) we have seen no evidence that the Chinese Government has lived up to it. I quote from our own State Department's human rights report of the past year which confirms the Chinese Government has been persecuting and incarcerating labor activists. According to our State Department: Independent trade unions are illegal. Following the signing of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture Rights in 1997, a number of labor activists petitioned the Government, the Chinese Government to establish free trade unions as allowed under the covenant. The Government has not approved the establishment of any independent unions to date. The State Department then goes on. My colleague says: Why is this needed? I will take a couple of minutes to list what has happened to a number of these different citizen activists. This is directly from our State Department report. The Senator from New York is the intellectual force of the Senate. He makes the point that the harsh repression during Mao's years has improved. I have no doubt that the situation has improved. But I would just have to say, look, go to our State Department report. I can only go from the empirical evidence over the last number of years and looking at our own Commission on International Freedom and their recommendations. They did a very careful study. We commissioned them to do the study of what the situation is on religious freedom. It is a picture of repression. It is not a picture of the ILO having enforcement power making any difference. It is not a picture of a country that has a respect for human rights. It is not a picture of a country respecting people who practice their religion. From our own State Department report: Two labor activists were sentenced in January to reeducation through labor--and the Chinese Government insists their reeducation through labor camps are not prisons. They give no human rights organizations any access. They say they are not prisons. Where have we heard this before on reeducation through labor--for 18 months and 12 months, respectively. The two were arrested in 1998 after leading steelworkers in a protest because they had not been paid wages. Another example: In January, the founder of a short-lived association to protect the rights and interests of laid off workers unsuccessfully appealed a 10-year prison sentence he received. He had been convicted of ``illegally providing intelligence to foreign organizations,'' after informing a Radio Free Asia reporter about worker protests in the Hunan province. I could go on and on. In August, in our own State Department report, another activist was sentenced to 10 years for subversion. They were arrested in January after establishing the China Workers Watch, an organization to defend workers rights. The family of one of these activist alleges that the police hung him by his hands in order to extract information on a fellow dissident. That is from a State Department report this year that I am now using as my evidence. In August, another labor activist was given a 10-year prison sentence for illegal union activities in the 1980s, and more recently because he organized demonstrations in Hunan. This time he was convicted for providing human rights organizations overseas with information on the protests. I have about 30 examples from this 1 report. I say to the Senator from New York, I understand the ILO, its mission, its history--not as well as the Senator. I understand it does not have enforcement power and that China has belonged to it since 1918. I understand that China is not abiding by or bound by this. I also understand that all the reports we have over the last several years do not paint a picture of improvement. We do not have an amendment that says we don't have trade with China; we do not have an amendment that says we should boycott China or we should have an embargo of trade with China. We have an amendment that just says that before automatically extending trade relations every year or before automatically extending PNTR, our Government should insist that the Chinese live up to basic human rights standards. My colleague from New York cited one of the great heroines of Tiananmen Square. I take what these brave people say very seriously. But it is also true that others, including Harry Woo and other men and woman who were at Tiananmen Square who are now in our country leading the human rights organizations, say the opposite. We know there are two different views. I think we should not be silent on these basic human rights questions. We should not be silent when it comes to repression against people. We should not be silent about the prison labor conditions. In 1992, the memorandum of understanding, and in 1994, we had another agreement with China where they agreed they would not export products to our country made by prison labor. They haven't complied with any of these agreements. I think this amendment is timely. I think there is plenty of evidence that speaks for this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator is right, but the irony is that by this law the Chinese shouldn't be exporting and we shouldn't be importing. The problem is, because of the good work of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Harkin, for the first time in 3 or 4 years we were finally able to go to one of these factories and do an on-site investigation. The problem has been not that we haven't tried; it is that every 3 months we make a request and every 3 months we have been turned down. This has been going on for years now. It is hard to argue that this amendment is not timely, relevant, and important in terms of whether or not we go on record for human rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, amendment No. 4119 deals with the human rights question; it deals with the trade question; it deals with the issue of Chinese exports to the United States of goods made by prison labor. To curb such exports, this amendment is about existing agreements that we already have with China. This amendment just says we want China to live up to the existing agreements. The United States and China first signed a memorandum of understanding in 1992, which I will refer to as MOU throughout the debate. Then we signed a statement of cooperation in 1994. This amendment would require that the President certify that China is fully compliant with the two trade agreements that China has already made with us before extending PNTR to China. Let me provide some background on U.S.-China agreements on trade in prison labor products and discuss China's deplorable record in complying with these agreements. Actually, they haven't complied with these agreements. The MOU was intended to end the export to the United States of goods produced by prison labor in China. China agreed to the United States' request back in 1992 that it would promptly investigate any companies that were involved in using prison labor to export products back to our country. But basically the Ministry of Justice in China completely ignored the agreement. In 1994, therefore, we signed another statement of cooperation with them in which China said: We will agree and we will set some time limits so that within 60 days of the United States' request to visit such a facility we will make that happen. We will be expeditious in making sure we follow through on this agreement. For the last 3 years, they have not followed through on any of these agreements. Because of the good work of my colleagues, Senator Harkin from Iowa and Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey--both of whom are going to speak on the floor of the Senate--for the first time in 3 years we had Customs able to visit one of these factories. But this really was the first time that China has budged at all. Other than that, we have seen no agreement, or no followthrough on these agreements. When I became a member of the Foreign Relations Committee 3 years ago, I remember the first hearing we held had to do with prison labor conditions in China and this whole problem of trade with China. Basically the consensus of all of the witnesses who testified, including administration witnesses, was that the Chinese compliance with our trade agreements was pitifully inadequate. There has been virtually no compliance with these agreements. The State Department issued a country-by-country report in 1999 and also in the year 2000. I will summarize. I could quote extensively. Both of these reports make it clear that during the last 2 years, China has not complied with these existing agreements. Let me simply raise a question with my colleagues. Here we have two trade agreements with China--two understandings. We have basically said to the Chinese Government that people in the United States of America would be outraged if they knew that part of what they were doing was exporting products to our country produced by prison labor. This is a human rights issue. It is a labor issue. And it is also a trade issue. It is interesting. I talked about a memorandum of understanding. In 1994, the administration used as evidence the fact that China had signed the statement of cooperation. For the first time, the President said: I am going to switch my position and I am going to delink human rights from trade because it is a great step forward that China has signed this statement of cooperation. That judgment turned out to be premature. China's Ministry of Justice ignored seven U.S. Customs' requests for investigation submitted in March of 1994, the same month that the agreement was passed. China, for years, has refused to allow U.S. officials access to its reeducation through labor facilities--let me repeat that--reeducation through labor facilities, arguing that these are not prisons. China, in spite of these agreements, has said: We will not allow the United States access to our reeducation through labor facilities because these are not prisons. Beijing would have us believe that these are merely educational institutions. And nothing, if we are at all concerned about human rights in the Senate, could be further from the truth. Reeducation through labor--known as ``laojiao'' in Chinese--is a system of administrative detention and punishment without trial. That is what it is. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing insists that reeducation through labor camps are covered by our trade agreements, the MOU. And this is confirmed by the MOU record. Beijing disagrees and continues to claim that these reeducation through labor facilities are not prisons. For over 5 years, China has repeatedly denied or ignored all U.S. requests to visit one of these facilities. We haven't been able to visit even one of these facilities. What has been this administration's reaction to China's refusal to allow a visit? It has been the same as for all denied visits. We renew our request every 3 months, and the Chinese totally ignore us. This charade ought to stop. It ought to stop now. That is why I hope there will be strong bipartisan support for this amendment. What does ``reeducation through labor'' mean? Let me read some excerpts from Human Rights Watch reports on this subject: The usual procedure is for the police acting on their own to determine a re-education term. Sentences run from one to three years' confinement in a camp or farm, often longer than for similar criminal offenses. A term can be extended for a fourth year if, in the prison authorities' judgment, the recipient has not been sufficiently re-educated, fails to admit guilt, or violates camp discipline. The recipient of a re-education through labor sentence has no right to a hearing, no right to counsel, and no right to any kind of judicial determination of his case. That is a quote from a Human Rights Watch report on this subject. Human Rights Watch also points out that inmates may have their reeducation sentence extended indefinitely, and concludes that reeducation through labor violates many of the provisions of international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China signed in 1998. The covenant states: Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention. Among other things, reeducation through labor bars the presumption of innocence, involves no judicial officer, provides for no public trial or defense against the charges. Amnesty International has concluded that it is impossible for China to claim a commitment to the rule of law while maintaining a system that sentences hundreds of thousands of people without due process. I couldn't agree more. According to the 1999 State Department report on human rights, there are 230,000 people in reeducation through labor camps. Conditions in these camps are similar to those in prisons. What does the report say about these conditions in prisons? It describes them as ``harsh, and frequently degrading for both political criminals and common criminals.'' The report says it is common for political prisoners to be segregated from each other and placed with common criminals. There are credible reports that common criminals have physically beaten up political prisoners at the instigation of the guards. I am sure my colleagues will agree that reeducation through labor doesn't qualify as an institution whose sole aim is education and rehabilitation, as China claims. Before certifying that China is in compliance with the MOU and SOC under this agreement, the President must affirm that China is permitting investigation and U.S. inspection of reeducation through labor facilities under the terms of both the memorandum of understanding and the statement of cooperation, two agreements that we have signed with China in 1992 and 1994. I am offering this amendment because I think it addresses concerns that many Members have in the Senate about PNTR, concerns about China's appalling and worsening human rights record. I heard my colleague from Nebraska say that the evidence is clear that opening up trade leads to more respect for human rights. The evidence is not clear on that. We have been doing record trade with China. We have a record trade imbalance. They export much more to the United States than vice versa. They export products made by forced prison labor in China. Over the last 10 years, we haven't seen more respect for human rights. Our own State Department reports that all of the human rights organizations reports point to harsh--and in some cases, worsening--conditions. How can Senators reviewing our trade relations with China give up this little leverage that we have and think somehow it will promote human rights when, as a matter of fact, we have seen no evidence whatever that the Government is moving in that direction. We will give up what little leverage we have. This amendment is about human rights. It is an amendment that speaks to whether or not we can depend upon China to honor trade agreements. It is an amendment that speaks to the concerns of working people, that they can't possibly compete with prison labor in China. Senators, I offer this amendment and I call for support on this amendment for three reasons: (A) out of respect for human rights; (B) because we already have these trade agreements with China. This is the most directly relevant amendment to PNTR awaiting action. We already have trade agreements with China and they have not abided by these agreements. Tomorrow they could. In this amendment, we call upon China to live up to these agreements before we automatically extend normal trade relations. What is unreasonable about that? Finally, I say to Democrats first, and Republicans second--Democrats first, because we are supposed to be more the party of the ``people''-- in all due respect, a lot of our constituents, a lot of working people, a lot of labor people, have every reason in the world to be a bit skeptical about this new trade agreement and the new global economics when we have China exporting to our country products produced by prison labor. I think this amendment is all about on whose side are we. Are we on the side of a repressive government that basically pays no attention to anything we say because the message we communicate is: We will, for the sake of commerce, sign any agreement; we are not concerned about these harsh conditions. But are we on the side of human rights? Are we on the side of the idea that China ought to live up to these trade agreements? Are we on the side of working people, laboring people in our own country who, by the way, will say to each one of you back in your States: Senator, we do not want to be put in a position of losing our jobs because this repressive government can export products made by forced prison labor in China and has not been willing to live up to any of the agreements they have signed with our country. I ask my colleagues to carefully consider the following questions: (A) How can we expect China to honor trade agreements with us when it systematically violates the two agreements we signed committing China and the United States to cooperate in curbing trade in prison labor products? They are in noncompliance with two agreements. (B) How can we do nothing, year after year, to bar imports of Chinese forced labor products when we know that China operates the world's largest forced labor system estimated to encompass over 1,100 camps and as many as 8 million Chinese prisoners? This is the Chinese version of the Soviet gulag. It encompasses a massive complex of prisons, labor camps, and labor farms for those sentenced judicially. Do we want to turn our gaze away from this, Senators? Do we want to pretend we didn't sign these agreements? Do we want to pretend China is complying with these agreements? Do we want to pretend that it is not an important human rights question? Do we want to pretend that this is not important to working people in our country? Do we want to pretend that citizens in our country would not have real indignation if they realized that we weren't willing to at least insist China live up to these trade agreements? And we are not going to if we do not pass this amendment. (C) How can the administration allow China to ignore agreements to halt forced labor exports, thereby abetting a dehumanizing system that imprisons and persecutes Chinese democrats--Republicans, I use democrats with a small ``d''--for peacefully advocating human rights, while enabling Beijing to profit from exports of prison products? Finally, how can the administration risk the displacement of U.S. workers while we turn a blind eye and China does nothing to bar exports to the United States of products made by prison labor. U.S. citizens are losing jobs. Colleagues, I look forward to hearing from the other side. H.R. 4444 proposes a toothless remedy. I do not want to let anyone in this debate get away with saying we are very concerned about this question. H.R. 4444 mandates the establishment of an interagency task force on prohibiting importation of products of forced or prison labor. This task force is to make recommendations to the Customs Service on seeking new agreements. Another task force. In all due respect, this toothless remedy has a made-for-Congress look to it. We do not want to bite the bullet, we do not want to do something substantive and important, so we do something that is symbolic--at best. Do we need another task force? We do not need another task force. We do not need an interagency task force. We already have two agreements with China--1992 and 1994. Another task force is meaningless. Let me just point out some of the more pointed Chinese proposals which were conveyed in a message sent in May from China's Ministry of Justice to the U.S. Customs attache in Beijing. The message admonishes the U.S. Embassy to abide by certain principles, which include: . . . the rule that Chinese officials conduct investigations first, then if necessary arrange visits for American counterparts. I quote again: Unnecessary visits will not be arranged if we can clarify and answer questions through the investigations. Really what the message from the Chinese Government is, is we conduct the investigations first and only afterwards permit the United States to visit suspected sites. This is in total opposition to the memorandum of understanding and the statement of cooperation. We already have the agreements. They are not in compliance with these agreements. And we want to set up a task force? Let me simply say the view of the Chinese Ministry of Justice that we should trust China's sincerity and therefore reduce the necessity of U.S. on-site visits is nothing short of ridiculous. This is pretty incredible. The other thing is, H.R. 4444 stipulates that the task force is to: . . . work with the Customs Service to assist the People's Republic of China in monitoring the sale of goods mined, produced or manufactured by convict labor, forced labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions to ensure that such goods are not exported to the United States. The Chinese Government controls prison labor in China. It can curb the export of forced prison labor products anytime it chooses. It certainly does not need the assistance of the United States. This is, frankly, ludicrous. It is just ludicrous. The State Department, in 1997, affirmed both the memorandum of understanding and the statement of cooperation, of 1992 and 1994, to be binding international agreements. The trouble is that China does not. It continues to get away with this because we impose no penalties for these egregious and continuing Chinese violations. In contrast to the provision now in H.R. 4444, which is toothless, my amendment for the first time will provide China with a strong incentive to comply with the MOE and SOC, for, if it fails to do so, then it will put PNTR at risk. An added benefit is that it would help restore U.S. credibility by holding China accountable for violating trade agreements with the United States. We are just insisting that China stop treating the bilateral agreements it has signed with us concerning prison labor exports as mere scraps of paper. What does this amendment ask for? It asks simply that PNTR be denied until the President can certify that China is honoring agreements it has repeatedly violated in the past. Is that too much to ask? Is that too much to ask? Mr. President, I have a document dated May 8, 2000, from the Deputy Director General of the Prison Administration Bureau, PRC, to David Benner, U.S. Customs Attache. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask consent this not be charged against my side.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleagues, Senator Lautenberg will be speaking in just a moment, but until he comes out, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, until my colleague from New Jersey is ready, I want to again summarize this amendment for other Senators. This is the issue of Chinese exports to the United States of goods made by prison labor. This is an issue of the memorandum signed in 1992, I say to my colleague from Delaware, to deal with this problem. The Chinese Government agreed: Yes, we are going to stop this. Then we signed another agreement, a statement of cooperation, in 1994. I have been on the floor citing State Department reports and other evidence--no question about it--that the Chinese have refused to comply with these agreements. It has been blatant. People in our country would be outraged to know this. I say to Senators, this is a three-pronged issue. I have talked about these reeducation labor camps. I have talked about the deplorable conditions. It is a human rights issue. I have cited human rights reports. I have said this is a trade issue. They have signed these agreements and have not lived up to them. I have said this is a labor issue. It permits ordinary people--which I mean in a positive way--in the States to be a little suspicious that they could lose their jobs as a result of this. I hope my colleagues will support this. It is an eminently reasonable amendment. It simply says the President needs to certify that China is fully compliant with these two agreements, which they have already made with us, before extending PNTR to China. I yield 12 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from New Jersey. Before he came to the floor, I mentioned a report that he and Senator Harkin had done. I really appreciate their strong voices as Senators for human rights. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I will wait to respond to arguments from the other side.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve a little bit of time for my colleague, Senator Harkin. But let me just say to my colleague from Delaware, as to the argument that it is not necessary to have any new agreements, there is nothing new here. We have existing trade agreements. We signed an agreement in 1992 and in 1994. The Chinese Government agreed not to export products to our country made by prison labor. They have not lived up to those agreements. This amendment just says we call on them to live up to the existing trade agreements before we go forward with PNTR. It is really that simple. The bitter irony is they are in violation of one law; they are not supposed to be exporting products made by prison labor. And we are in violation of another law: We are not supposed to be importing those products. My second point is, my colleague cites H.R. 4444. It is just a toothless remedy. This has a ``made-for-Congress'' look. We are going to set up a task force, and we are going to assist the Chinese Government in living up to these trade agreements. The Chinese Government does not need any assistance. They control the prison labor camps. They can live up to the agreements today. They can live up to the agreements tomorrow. They do not need a task force set up. So I cannot let my good friend from Delaware get away with this. I just think it boils down to this: They have the largest forced prison labor system in the world; these are the functional equivalent of gulags. I could use, frankly, stronger terms, I say to my colleague from Delaware, to describe them. Do we really want to be implicated in this? Do we want to be beneficiaries of these gulags? Do the citizens of our country--we are now speaking and voting in their name--want to be beneficiaries of this forced prison labor system, the largest in the world, these gulags, where we get products at a lower price because it is on the backs of people who are political prisoners, who have done nothing more than speak out for their freedom? I think not. If we are concerned about it, we will support this amendment. There is no way around that, I say to my colleagues. This is a straight up- or-down vote on whether or not this is a concern to us. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I informed the distinguished chair of the Finance Committee that I would be ready to yield back time. I wonder if I could take 2 minutes and then I will yield back. We will have a vote on the Thompson-Torricelli amendment, and there are going to be Senators who will come out and say: This is not about trying to scuttle this overall trade agreement. We will go to conference committee. We will get this worked out. And there is such strong sentiment for this overall agreement, this is a good thing to do. I want to say to Senators, I hope when we vote on the amendment I have offered with Senator Lautenberg--and I believe Senator Harkin will want to be an original cosponsor--there will be the same sentiment. If you think it is the right thing to do to vote for this amendment, if you think it is the right thing to do to say to China: We already have these trade agreements with you in regard to prison labor conditions and we are just asking you to live up to those agreements before, in fact, we finally go forward with PNTR--if you think this is an important human rights issue, if you think we should not be implicated in any way, shape, or form in the functional equivalent of these gulags, if you think this is a labor issue, if you think this is a trade issue--it is a very compelling issue--then please don't vote against what you think is right. We can't have Senators being selective on this and voting one way on one amendment. Senators can say: We will not vote for any amendments, period. I have heard that. But now different people are voting for some amendments and not others. I say to my colleagues: Vote for what you think is right. If you think this amendment I have offered is wrong, it is not the right thing to do based upon your sense of justice or right or anything else, then vote against it. Otherwise, please vote for this amendment. Don't make the argument that I am voting against all amendments when, in fact, Senators are obviously going to be voting for some amendments. I yield the remainder of my time.