Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Marty Gensler, who is a fellow in my office, have floor privileges during the rest of the debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that I will soon send to the desk to proclaim September, 2000, as ``National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month,'' and to recognize the Administration, government agencies, and the many groups supporting this effort highlighting the critical need to support our children and adolescents in addiction treatment and recovery. The Year 2000 Recovery Month theme is ``Recovering Our Future: One Youth at a Time,'' with a clear message that we need to increase awareness about alcohol and drug addiction and to promote treatment and recovery for our youth. Addiction to alcohol and drugs is a disease that many individuals face as a painful, private struggle, often without access to treatment or medical care. But this disease also has staggering public costs. A 1998 report prepared by The Lewin Group for the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, estimated the total economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse to be approximately $264 billion for 1992. Of this cost, an estimated $98 billion was due to addiction to illicit drugs and other drugs taken for non-medical purposes. This estimate includes addiction treatment and prevention costs, as well as costs associated with related illnesses, reduced job productivity or lost earnings, and other costs to society such as crime and social welfare programs. Adults and children who have the disease of addiction can be found throughout our society. We know from the outstanding research done at the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health that although there were improvements in 1999 in some areas of drug use, the use of illicit drugs among our 13-18 year old children has increased significantly, particularly in the use of alcohol, Ecstasy, anabolic-androgenic steroids, and heroin. More than half of our nation's 12th graders reported that they have tried an illicit drug, and more than one- quarter have tried a drug other than marijuana. And, although the consumption of alcohol is illegal for those under 21 years of age, more than 10 million current drinkers are age 12 to 20. The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has recognized that the number one priority for the nation's National Drug Control Strategy is to educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco. And yet, 80% of adolescents needing treatment are unable to access services because of the severe lack of coverage for addiction treatment or the unavailability of treatment programs or trained health care providers in their community. The 1998 Hay Group Report revealed that the overall value of substance abuse treatment benefits has decreased by 74.5% from 1988 through 1998, leaving our youth without sufficient medical care for this disease when they are most vulnerable. We know that addiction to alcohol and other drugs contribute to other problems as well. Addictive substances have the potential for destroying the person who is addicted, as well as his or her family. We know, for example, that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. If a woman who was addicted to alcohol could receive proper treatment, fetal alcohol syndrome for her baby would be 100 percent preventable, and more than 12,000 infants born in the U.S. each year would not suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, with its irreversible physical and mental damage. We know too of the devastation caused by addiction when violence between people is one of the consequences. A 1998 SAMHSA report outlined the links between domestic violence and substance abuse. We know from clinical reports that 25-50% of men who commit acts of domestic violence also have substance abuse problems. The report recognized the link between the victim of abuse and use of alcohol and drugs, and recommended that after the woman's safety has been addressed, the next step would be to help with providing treatment for her addiction as a step toward independence and health, and toward the prevention of the consequences for the children who suffer the same abuse either directly, or indirectly by witnessing spousal violence. The physical, emotional, and social harm caused by this disease is both preventable and treatable. We know from the outstanding research conducted at NIH, through the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcoholism, that treatment for drug and alcohol addiction can be effective. The effectiveness of treatment is the major finding from a NIDA-sponsored nationwide study of drug abuse treatment outcomes. The Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) tracked 10,000 people in nearly 100 treatment programs in 11 cities who entered treatment for addiction between 1991 and 1993. Results showed that for all four treatment types studied, there were significant reductions in drug use after treatment. Moreover, treatment resulted in other positive changes in behavior, such as fewer psychological symptoms and increased work productivity. Addiction to alcohol and drugs is a disease that affects the brain, the body, and the spirit. We must provide adequate opportunities for the treatment of addiction in order to help those who are suffering and to prevent the health and social problems that it causes, and we know that the costs to do so are very low. A 1999 study by the Rand Corporation found that the cost to managed care health plans is now only about $5 per person per year for unlimited substance abuse treatment benefits to employees of big companies. A 1997 Milliman and Robertson study found that complete substance abuse treatment parity would increase per capita health insurance premiums by only one half of one percent, or less than $1 per member per month--without even considering any of the obvious savings that will result from treatment. Several studies have shown that for every $1 spent on treatment, more than $7 is saved in other health care expenses. These savings are in addition to the financial and other benefits of increased productivity, as well as participation in family and community life. Providing treatment for addiction also saves millions of dollars in the criminal justice system. But for treatment to be effective and helpful throughout our society all systems of care--including private insurance plans--must share this responsibility. The National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month in the year 2000 celebrates the tremendous strides taken by individuals who have undergone successful treatment and recognizes those in the treatment field who have dedicated their lives to helping our young people recover from addiction. Many individuals, families, organizations, and communities give generously of their time and expertise to help those suffering from addiction and to help them to achieve recovery and productive, healthy lives. The Recovery Month events being planned throughout our nation, including one in St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 18, will recognize the countless numbers of those who have successfully recovered from addiction and who are living proof that people of all races, genders, and ages recover every day from the disease of alcohol and drug addiction, and now make positive contributions to their families, workplaces, communities, state, and nation. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the month of September, 2000, as Recover Month, and to take part in the many local and national activities and events recognizing this effort.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. That is more than a reasonable way to proceed. I say to my colleague from Nebraska before he responds, so we can move forward in an expeditious way, I will be prepared when I get the floor to lay my amendments out and then lay them aside so other Senators can offer amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, say to the Senator from Nebraska and to other Senators, that I appreciate what he said, although I think some of my colleagues' remarks were more general remarks about the overall trade agreement. I will try to respond to a little bit of that. But I don't want Senators to get away from what this amendment is about and this vote. By a 98-0 vote, we supported the International Religious Freedom Act. We said that we were concerned about promoting religious freedom throughout the world. This legislation called for a commission to be set up, called the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, to make recommendations to us about how we could promote religious freedom throughout the world. This Commission has come up with a recommendation about China. What this Commission has said--a Commission with extraordinary diversity; some of its members for PNTR, other members against it; some of its members Republican, some of its members Democrat; some of its members Christian, Jewish, you name it--and I quote: Given the sharp deterioration in freedom of religion in China during the last year, the Commission believes an unconditional grant of PNTR at this moment may be taken as a signal of American indifference to religious freedom. That is what this amendment is about. That is what this vote is about. This amendment mirrors the recommendations of this Commission. This amendment does not say that we should not trade with China. This amendment does not say that we should isolate China. This amendment does not say that we should not continue to have economic relations with China. This amendment does not say we should boycott China. This amendment is not a China-bashing amendment. This amendment goes to the very heart of what we say we are about as a country and what we are about as a Senate. All this amendment says is that before we finally sign off on PNTR, before we automatically renew normal trade relations--or what we used to call most favored nation status--with China, let's at least call upon China to live up to the following standards: China will agree to establish a high-level and ongoing dialog with the U.S. Government on religious freedom issues; China will agree to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it signed in 1998; China will agree on unhindered access to religious leaders, including those who have been imprisoned; China will give us a detailed response to inquiries about a number of people who have been in prison or detained or whose whereabouts are not known; and China will show they have made substantial progress in releasing from prison all persons incarcerated for religious reasons. This amendment does not say we do not trade with China. This amendment does not say we do not have economic relations with China. This amendment just says that we ought to, in this trade agreement, not just focus on the ``almighty'' dollar. By the way, we will have this debate tomorrow. I said yesterday--and I know other Senators will say it--my colleague from Nebraska talks about all these exports. I want to tell you, we are going to see a lot more investment, not necessarily more exports. When I hear my colleague from Nebraska describe what is freedom in China, and what is going to go on, I can't figure out exactly what he is trying to get at. We have these two reports on the brutal treatment of people. I just spent 30 or 40 minutes giving examples of the persecution in China. We have the State Department report on human rights abuses. We have all the human rights organizations reports. We just want to say no, that doesn't matter? We don't want to take this into account at all? We don't want to at least pass an amendment that says yes to normal trade relations, but, China, you must at least live up to these elementary conditions, this sort of basic definition of decency? We don't wanted to go on record supporting that? We have U.S. companies going to China right now, and they are paying 3 cents an hour. We have people working from 8 in the morning until 10 at night, with maybe a half an hour off from work, under deplorable, horrible working conditions. If they should dare to try to organize a union, they wind up in prison serving 3- to 8-year sentences. I hear from my colleagues we are all concerned about freedom. The evidence just does not support that. Let me be clear by way of summary: This amendment I have introduced-- cosponsored by Senator Helms and, I believe, Senator Feingold--says we are going to take seriously the International Freedom Act that we passed, we are going to take seriously the recommendations of this report, we are going to say there will be normal trade relations, but the Chinese Government does have to live up to these standards; we are not going to be indifferent to the religious persecution that is taking place in this country. If this report had not come out by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, if the State Department had not come out with a report saying it is brutal what is happening to people-- Christians, Muslims, Catholics, you name it--then I wouldn't have this amendment. But this is the evidence that is staring us in the face. The amendment I have introduced calls upon the Senate not to be silent on this question. I know all about some of the companies that have all of their ideas about investment. I know the ways in which they are going to make China an export platform, where they can pay people miserably low wages and then send products back to our country. They are doing that right now. I understand all of the economic power behind this. But I ask my colleagues, are there not other values that matter to us? How about religious freedom? Again, I say to my colleague from Nebraska, this isn't about whether or not this bill will pass. That is not a legitimate excuse to vote against this amendment. If you feel strongly about religious persecution and you do not want to be indifferent, then you should support this amendment. If we pass this amendment and this bill goes to conference committee, then it will be rereported out of conference committee. And if there is the will to pass this and there is overwhelming support for establishing normal trade relations with China without annual review, it will pass. Everyone knows that. Don't use that as an excuse. Just vote for what you think is right. Don't go home to the coffee shops in your State and say: Well, yes, I think these reports about persecution of people were terrible. I certainly didn't want the Senate to be indifferent, and I didn't want to communicate a message to the Chinese Government that all we care about is the economics, we don't care about these issues. The thing of it is, I couldn't vote for this amendment because if I voted for this amendment, then the bill wouldn't have been passed in the same form in the House and the Senate. And then it would have had to go to conference committee, and that would have meant there would be some delay. I didn't want there to be any delay. People's eyes will glaze over. They will look at you, and they will say: Why don't you just vote for what you think is right or wrong. Don't give us this insider talk which, by the way, is not so persuasive. We could pass this bill in any number of different ways with this amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it. Amendments Nos. 4118 Through 4121, En Bloc

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know Senator Byrd has some amendments. What I will do is send up my other amendments and ask for their consideration. Then I will lay them aside so other colleagues may introduce their amendments. I send my other four amendments to the desk en bloc.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have already made my arguments. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be added as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't think we have reached an agreement on amendments yet. It is my intention to have some good, substantive debate on amendments. I have a number of amendments I want to bring to the floor. I certainly will agree to time limits on each of these amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct. It is not on paper yet, but I think that is what we will agree to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No. There are a few things to be worked out first.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first, I say to colleagues that if I was not on the floor right now, I would be in the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Brownback is conducting some hearings that deal with religious freedom in China. This amendment also deals with the same question. I rise today, Democrats and Republicans, to offer an amendment. I offer this amendment with Senator Helms of North Carolina. I believe later on Senator Feingold is going to want to be added as a cosponsor. This amendment will prove that our country cares deeply about religious freedom and our country is not indifferent to the suffering of millions of Chinese who face religious persecution. Respect for religious liberty goes to the heart of American values. We cannot say that we are deeply committed to human rights and that we are deeply committed to religious freedom and then remain silent as we witness China's abuse of both of these rights. Two years ago, in a 98-0 vote, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the International Religious Freedom Act, which created the Commission on International Religious Freedom. Congress instructed that the Commission make recommendations to us when it comes to how, through our foreign policy, we could promote international religious freedoms. It took this mandate seriously. After a year-long investigation, the Commission--and this is the report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was issued May 1, 2000--found that ``The government of China and the Communist Party of China discriminates, harasses, incarcerates, and tortures people on the basis of their religion and beliefs.'' My amendment follows verbatim the Commission's recommendation. It was the recommendation of this Commission, which we established by a 98-0 vote, to delay PNTR until China made ``substantial'' improvements in allowing its people the freedom to worship as measured by several concrete benchmarks. People who believe in religious freedom have long understood a basic truth--that America, our country, can never be indifferent to religious persecution. When others are hounded or persecuted for their religious beliefs, we are diminished by our own failure to act or speak out. But when we embrace the cause of religious freedom, we reaffirm one of the great values of American democracy. This legislation and this administration is focused on trade, which it is now promoting as a human rights policy. But trade alone will never guarantee change. This report, which I am going to read in a moment, on religious persecution in China issued just this year is brutal. The State Department issued its report on international religious freedom. Senators cannot turn their gaze away from this unpleasant truth. They talk about a tremendous amount of persecution in China. We have now had two reports by the State Department on human rights which have not reported great improvement. This past year, the State Department report on human rights abuses talked about a brutal climate in China. We cannot reward China with PNTR while it continues to harass and jail people because of their religious beliefs. Just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that China has indicted 85 members of a Christian sect in a followup to the recent retention of 130 of its members and the expulsion of 3 American missionaries. With passage of PNTR, the United States of America gives up our annual right of review of China's most favored nation trade privileges as well as our bilateral trade remedy. We have not used this leverage as effectively as we should. But do we want to give up all of this leverage? Do we want to say we do not take into account this religious persecution in China and we will no longer annually review trade relations to maintain some leverage and some voice in support of the right of people in China to practice their religious beliefs? During the debate on the International Religious Freedom Act, many of my colleagues made impassioned speeches that U.S. foreign policy should never ignore the importance of this fundamental right of people to be able to practice their religion and not be persecuted in our dealings with other countries. In fact, Congress instructed the Commission to make recommendations to ensure that American foreign policy promotes international religious freedom. That is what this amendment is about. The Commission's members--because I am going in a moment to mirror their recommendations, which is what this amendment basically reflects--are drawn from both parties and represent extremely diverse points of view, including, by the way, the members of this Commission as strong proponents of free trade. Its members include Elliot Abrams, former assistant to President Ronald Reagan; John Bolton of the American Enterprise Institute; Rev. Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Newark; Nina Shea of Freedom House; and Rabbi David Sapperstein, director of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism. Despite the Commission's extraordinary diversity, its members unanimously agreed on no PNTR for China. We voted 98-0 for this legislation. We established this Commission. We asked this Commission to present to us recommendations about how we could promote religious freedom. The Commission took this mandate seriously. I want to just quote from this Commission's report. Its members unanimously agreed that we should vote no on PNTR for China. Given the sharp deterioration in freedom of religion in China during the last year, the Commission believes an unconditional grant of PNTR at this moment may be taken as a signal of American indifference to religious freedom. We are just asking in our amendment that Democrats and Republicans go on record as not being indifferent when it comes to the question of religious freedom. I will explain my amendment in a moment. I see my colleague, Senator Helms, on the floor. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina and ask unanimous consent that I be able to follow him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from North Carolina. Mr. President, so that all Senators will know what this amendment does, let me be very precise about it. I look forward to hearing a response from my colleague from Nebraska. It tracks the recommendations of the Commission on Religious Freedom precisely, that the U.S. Congress should grant PNTR, the Commission said, only after China makes substantial improvements with respect to freedom of religion as measured by the following standards, which I think are not unreasonable: (A) China agrees to establish a high level and ongoing dialog with the U.S. Government on religious freedom issues; (B) China agrees to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which it signed in 1998; (C) China agrees to permit unhindered access to religious leaders, including those imprisoned, detained, or under house arrest by the U.S. commission on international freedom and other human rights organizations; (D) China provides a detailed response to inquiries regarding a number of persons who were imprisoned, detained, or under house arrest for reasons of religion or belief, or whose whereabouts are not known but who were last seen in the custody of Chinese authorities. And, finally, China has made substantial progress in releasing from prison all persons incarcerated for religious reasons. This amendment is basically the recommendations of the report on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Commission settled on these reasonable conditions after an intensive investigation where they met with Government officials, bishops, monks, and members of house churches in China. Its report extensively documents abuses against Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and others in China. Let me give my colleagues a few examples. I start with Christians. The Commission found that the Chinese Government has engaged in crackdowns on the Protestant house church movement and Catholics loyal to the Vatican. Last week, Chinese authorities arrested over 130 Evangelical Christians, including 3 Americans, for holding a revival meeting. Further, Chinese authorities detained scores of Protestant worshipers and detained, beat, and fined unknown underground Catholics in Hebei Province last year. In recent months, many Catholic clergy loyal to the Vatican have also been detained. One young bishop was detained while performing an unauthorized mass. He was found dead on the street in Beijing shortly after being released from detention. The Vatican reports that five churches built without the Chinese Government's authorization were torn down, and another 15 were destroyed in Fujian Province. While harsh prison sentences and violence against religious activists continue, state control, increasingly, takes the form of the registration process. This is the way the Government monitors membership in religious organizations, locations of meetings, selection of clergy, and content of publications. If religious members do not register, they can be fined, their property seized, and sometimes they are detained. Again, I am just summarizing the reports that are before the Senate. Muslims: The Government has also carried out a major purge of local officials in heavily populated Muslim areas and targeted ``underground'' Muslim religious activities. The Government has banned the construction or renovation of 133 mosques, and arrested scores of Muslim religious dissidents. In Xinjiang, Muslims holding positions in the Government who continue to practice Islam have lost their jobs. Local newspapers report that authorities were moving village by village, hamlet by hamlet, to clean up illegal religious activity. Religious teachers and students at unregistered schools have been detained, and they have been sent to reeducation through labor camps. Conditions in Xinjiang labor camps are said to be the most horrific in China. Brutality and hunger are common, some inmates simply disappear. As in other areas in China, officials have launched an indepth ``atheist education'' campaign. As in Tibet, access to information is severely restricted. These are the reports before the Senate. And we are going to say that we will not speak out, and we are not going to at least ask China to comply with minimum standards of decency when it comes to ending this religious persecution before we automatically renew trade relations? Now to Tibetans. Prior to the Chinese invasion in 1950, Tibet was a country steeped in religion. Religious practice was central to the identity and the lives of Tibetan people. Recognizing the power of religion in Tibetan life, the Chinese have attempted to destroy this cultural base, to quell dissent with authoritarian rule. Over 6,000 monasteries and sacred places have been destroyed by the Chinese over the last 40 years. Today in Tibet, human rights conditions remain grim. Tibetan religious activists face ``disappearance'' or incommunicado detention, long prison sentences, and brutal treatment in custody. We are going to be silent about this? In addition, a Government-orchestrated campaign against the Dalai Lama continues. The campaign includes a reeducation program for monks and nuns which the government has spread widely. In one county, for example, monks were locked in their rooms for over 3 weeks for their refusal to denounce the Dalai Lama. In another region, over 120 resident nuns were expelled from their monasteries. In an action denounced by the Dalai Lama, the Beijing government picked a boy as the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. This is the latest campaign by the Chinese government to control the future of their religion. In 1995, the Dalai Lama identified another Tibetan boy as the reincarnate Panchen Lama. The Chinese government immediately denounced the Dalai Lama's choice, arrested the boy and his family, and pushed their choice. Chinese authorities continue to hold the Panchen Lama--the world's youngest political prisoner--at a secret location and have refused all requests to visit him by official and unofficial foreign delegations. As the Commission declared: The Chinese government has no more authority under Tibetan Buddhism to select reincarnated lamas than they do to select bishops under Roman Catholicism. The Karmapa Lama, a young Tibetan man, who was groomed by the Chinese for their own political purposes recently fled his monastery and his Chinese guards for life in exile in India. He had been used cynically by the Chinese as a symbol of religious freedom, yet was unable to receive instruction by religious tutors as required by Tibetan tradition. Earlier this year, the young leader said: Tibet has suffered great losses. Tibetan religion and culture have reached the point of complete destruction. And we do not take that into account with this legislation? We do not even want to go on record supporting religious freedom? China's excesses can be felt even closer to home as witnessed this past week in New York. On August 28th, more than 1,000 religious leaders from around the world attended the Millennium Peace Summit, a conference organized under the authority of the United Nations. Because of pressure from the Chinese government, the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists and winner of the Nobel Peace Price, was conspicuously not invited. U.N. officials and China's own diplomats told conference organizers that China would oppose any appearance in the U.N. General Assembly chamber by the leader of Tibet's 15 million Buddhists. By the way, I note that Ms. Jiang, from the Qi Gong movement, and Mr. Harry Wu--and I will have an amendment on prison labor--I think is somewhere here in the gallery during this debate. Perhaps the most egregious example of the PRC government's contempt for the rights of its own citizens has been the unrelenting campaign of repression against practitioners and defenders of Falun Gong, a popular practice of meditation and exercises. 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, 400 have been incarcerated in psychiatric facilities, and over 500 have received prison sentences in cursory show trials. Detainees are often tortured and at least 33 practitioners have died in government custody. Every day there is a report in the New York Times about these abuses in China. Are we just going to ignore all of this? Consider, for instance, the death of Chen Zixiu, a 58-year-old retired autoworker, who was killed by torture at the hands of Beijing officers when she was unable to pay the fire for her jail time. As described in the Wall Street Journal: The day before Chen died, her captors again demanded that she renounce her faith in Falun Gong. Barely conscious after repeated jolts from a cattle prod, the 58-year-old stubbornly shook her head. Enraged, the local officials ordered Ms. Chen to run barefoot in the snow. Two days of torture had left her legs bruised and her short black hair matted with pus and blood, said cellmates and other prisoners who witnessed the incident. She crawled outside, vomited, and collapsed. She never regained consciousness. Furthermore, over 600 Falun Gong practitioners have reportedly been committed to mental hospitals, where they have been mistreated with injections, sedatives, anti-psychotics, as well as electric shocks. State doctors are misusing the practice of psychiatry against political dissidents, as in the practice of ``Soviet psychiatry.'' That was the country from which my father fled persecutions. The Washington Post recently reported on a computer engineer and a Falun Gong practitioner who died after spending a week in a mental hospital where doctors injected him, twice daily, with an unknown substance that made him lose mobility and finally led to heart failure. This man suffered extreme mistreatment simply for peacefully exercising their beliefs, a right recognized by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and guaranteed by China's own Constitution. It is particularly disturbing that Chinese officials have publicly defended these atrocities on the spurious ground that Falun Gong is allegedly destabilizing the country. Beijing has made similar statements about Christian ``house churches'' that refuse to submit to government oversight and direction. As Rabbi David Sapperstein, the former Chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, he said: Falun Gong has almost become the symbol for the struggle for religious freedom. And when thousands and thousands of people have been arrested, imprisoned, tortured, when people have died in prison, it is impossible for countries to say they are deeply committed to human rights and remain silent. And that is why we have urged the United States government to speak out. Please let me repeat that: And when thousands and thousands of people, Rabbi David Sapperstein goes on to say ``have been arrested, imprisoned, tortured, when people have died in prison, it is impossible for countries to say that they are deeply committed to human rights and remain silent. And that is why we have urged the U.S. government to speak out. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will show that the U.S. Senate does not just pay lip service to the importance of religious freedom, and that it supports the right of millions of Chinese to practice their faiths in peace and without persecution. My amendment is the least we can do. China should not be awarded PNTR now while it continues to arrest Christians, torture Muslims, and hound Tibetans--all because they refuse to renounce their beliefs. This is a vote on religious freedom. This is a vote about our commitment to it. I do feel strongly about this, given my own background and what my family went through in another country, Russia. But I also want to say to colleagues that it is, in my view, not acceptable to vote ``no''; to vote against this amendment or to table this amendment with the argument being: But if we pass an amendment we would have to go to conference committee. Try telling that to people back home. To me this is the ultimate insider's argument: We cannot support an amendment that supports religious freedom because then the bill we passed would be in a different form than the House bill, and it would have to go to conference committee. People are not going to be persuaded by that argument. People want us to vote for what we think is right, and that is what we should do. I say to Senators, I personally believe it is a bogus argument. Every Senator in this Chamber knows that if we are serious about passing legislation--I have not been involved in a strategy of delay. I know we are going to have the debate, and I know the legislation is going to pass. But if we want to pass the legislation, there are all sorts of precedents. We will get it to conference committee, and we will get it right out of conference committee and pass it. We can put it into an omnibus Appropriations Committee report. There are many ways this legislation can be passed, and I do not believe Senators should be able to say: No, we are not going to vote for this amendment that deals with religious persecution because we do not want this legislation to go to conference committee. This legislation can go to conference committee, come out of conference committee, and it can pass. I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time. I know we are not under a UC agreement, but I will take a few more minutes to respond later.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, all these amendments will have debate and time agreements, and we will move along.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, again, on this one procedural point, maybe there is something I don't understand about the Senate, but I have been here 10 years. We do have conference reports and conference committees. This is the most amazing argument. All of a sudden, people are coming to the floor and saying we can't vote for any amendment because there will be no conference committee, or there might be one, but then the bill will be dead. What? We have conference committees all the time. If Senators want to pass this, and if this amendment or other amendments pass and this bill is in a different form, it will be a better bill than we have. Believe me, it will go to conference. And given this steamroller on behalf of this legislation, with so many people wanting it to pass with such powerful interests in the country for it, believe me, it will go to conference committee and the conference committee will report right back to us, and it will pass if we want it to pass. You can't make the argument that a vote for the amendment kills the bill. Vote for the amendment on its merits up or down but don't make that argument because it is simply not accurate. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask that the vote occur now.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow the Senator from Montana in this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana for his remarks. We are not in agreement on this question, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for his work in the Senate. Let me, first of all, state at the beginning of this debate that it is commonly assumed the Senate is going to pass PNTR. For most, this is a foregone conclusion, but I think this is an extremely important debate and, as a matter of fact, one of the reasons I am very proud to be a Senator from Minnesota is that, unlike the House of Representatives where it was really difficult to have an extensive debate, we will have that debate in the Senate. I will have a number of amendments I will bring to the floor. They will be substantive. I think my colleagues will believe they are thoughtful, and we will have up-or- down votes. I also echo the remarks of my colleague from Montana when he says we should be very clear about what this debate is about and what it is not about. This debate is not about whether or not we have trade with China. We do have trade with China. We will have trade with China. It is not about whether or not we communicate with China. We most definitely will. It is not about whether we isolate China. We are not going to do that. It is not about whether we should have an embargo of China, as we do with Cuba. That is not even on the radar screen. Nobody is talking about any of that. The question before us is whether or not we in the Congress give up our right to have annual review of normal trade relations with China--we used to call it most- favored-nation status--whether or not we give up what has been our only leverage to promote noncommercial values--I emphasize that, I say to my colleagues--noncommercial values in our trading relationships, such as human rights, labor rights, and environmental protection. Do we put human rights, labor rights, environmental protection, religious rights, the right not to be persecuted for practicing one's religious beliefs or exercising one's religious beliefs in parentheses, of no interest or concern to us, or do we maintain some leverage as a country to speak out on this? The larger question is not whether China is integrated into the world economy. China is a part of the world economy. The questions are: Under what terms will China be integrated? what will the rules be? who will decide those rules? who will benefit from these decisions? and who will be harmed by them? The trade agreement negotiated by the United States and China last November and the PNTR legislation currently before the Senate provide very discouraging answers to these questions as to who will decide, who will benefit, and exactly who is going to be asked to sacrifice. Our bilateral agreement contains page after page of protections for U.S. investors. It is a virtual wish list for multinational corporations operating in China and for those who wish to relocate their production there, but it contains not a word about human rights, nothing about religious freedom, nothing on labor rights, and nothing on the environment. It has been said that the United States could not demand such things because we have conceded nothing in our deal with China. That is far from the truth. With PNTR, the United States gives up our annual review of China most-favored-nation trading privileges, as well as our bilateral trade remedies. MFN review has not been used as effectively as it should be, I grant that, but it is about the only leverage we have left to speak up for human rights, and when we as a nation do not speak up for human rights in other countries, we diminish ourselves. Just ask Wei Jingsheng, who I hope will receive the Nobel Prize for his courageous speaking out for democracy in China. Ask him the difference it made when every year normal trade relations with China came up for review here while he was in prison. The treatment was better. The Government was worried about what we would do. Now we give up that leverage. It is also true that our bilateral trade remedies have not been used as effectively as they should, but section 301 remains our only explicit remedy against China's violation of core labor standards. The United States right now absorbs 40 percent of China's exports. The argument that we could not have done better by way of some concessions on these basic issues falls on its face. In exchange for the concessions we have made to China, could we not have at least exacted some concessions with regard to human rights? We did not. Yet this year's annual report by the State Department says China's human rights performance continued to worsen in 1999. Today in the New York Times there is another State Department report which we called for, we required, on the whole question of religious freedom or lack of religious freedom. I quote from just the first two paragraphs of today's New York Times: As more and more Chinese seek to practice faiths including Tibetan Buddhism, Christianity and Islam, government officials have increasingly responded with harassment, extortion, detention, and even torture, the State Department said today. As a result, a ``marked deterioration'' in religious freedom has occurred in China during the last year, enabled by a new law granting state and local officials broad authority to suppress 14 minority religions, including the Falun Gong movement, the State Department said in its second annual report on religious freedom around the world. We have had more relations, more trade, and this vote is coming up this year, and when it comes to the question of whether people can exercise the right to practice their own religion, there is more persecution. I will have an amendment that will deal with the whole question of religious freedom. It will mirror the conclusions of a commission we set up to look at religious freedom throughout the world, to look at religious freedom in China, a commission which recommended to the Congress that we not grant automatic trade relations with China unless the Chinese Government meets essential minimum decency requirements when it comes to not persecuting people because of their religious practice. According to the State Department'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. We are talking about hundreds, maybe thousands, of people in China sentenced to long prison terms where they have been beaten, tortured, and denied medical care. According to Amnesty International, throughout China, mass summary executions continue to be carried out. At least 6,000 death sentences and 3,500 executions were officially recorded last year. The real figures are believed to be much higher. Nor did we obtain any concessions on religious freedom in our negotiations with China. Scores of Roman Catholics and Protestants--I speak as a Jew--have been arrested. A crackdown on Tibet was carried out during the ``strike hard'' campaign. Authorities ordered the closure of monasteries in Tibet and banned the Dalai Lama's image. At one monastery which was closed, over 90 monks and novices were detained or ``disappeared.'' That is why the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended delaying PNTR until China makes ``substantial improvement in allowing people the freedom to worship.'' I say to my colleagues, do you just want to turn your gaze away from this question? We obtained no concessions from China on complying with their existing commitments on forced prison labor which they have not lived up to. Harry Wu, a man of extraordinary courage and character, has documented China's extensive forced labor system. His research has identified more than 1,100 labor camps across China, many of which produce products for export to dozens of countries around the world, including the United States. We demanded no concessions from the Chinese on their persecution of labor organizers. If you try to form an independent union, if you should want to make more than 3 cents an hour, or 14 cents an hour, if you should not want to work 16 and 18 hours a day, if you should want to be treated with some dignity, and you try to organize a union, then you are faced with 3 to 8 years in a hard labor camp. We pay no attention to this question at all, I say to Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike. Absent any minimum standards for human rights, for labor, or for the environment, the most likely scenario is for China to become an export platform, attracting foreign manufacturers, with lax regulations, and wages as low as 3 cents an hour. Unfortunately, many of the concessions that we chose to demand from China will only make it easier for the United States, for multinational corporations to relocate there, paying people 10 cents an hour, 3 cents an hour, 13 cents an hour--I am going to give examples in my opening statement in just a few minutes--in competition with American workers and ordinary people in our country, who, by the way, if they oppose our trade agreements, are accused of being backward, are accused of not being sophisticated, are accused of not understanding this new global economy in which we live. Please forgive ordinary citizens and wage earners for their skepticism that without some basic standards, what you are going to see is China becoming a magnet for more and more companies to go there and pay people deplorable wages, with deplorable working conditions, while we lose our jobs. I believe the time has come for a different approach in negotiating our trade agreements and for reforming the rules of the global economy. I want to make it very clear at the beginning of my opening statement, I say to my colleagues, I am an internationalist. I am a fierce internationalist. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution from the Ukraine, who was born in the Ukraine, and then lived in Russia, who spoke 10 languages fluently. I am not an isolationist. But I will say today on the floor of the Senate that we should be looking forward, and we should be looking to how we participate in this new global economy, and how we can have some rules, some edifice, some kind of framework so this new global economy works for working people and the environment and human rights. Too many of my colleagues want to put all of these concerns in parenthesis. I think we need to be clear about what is at stake. My colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, said that as well. That is why so many people in this country are concerned about passage of this legislation. The PNTR is being sold as an agreement to increase U.S. exports. I have heard this said a million times: If we pass PNTR, we will dramatically increase U.S. exports to China, and it will be a win-win-- a win-win for agriculture, a win-win for business, a win-win for labor. This legislation and trade deal with China is much more about investment than it is about exports. It is much more about making it easier for U.S. firms to relocate jobs in China than it is about exports. First of all, the argument that this debate is all about exports and reducing our trade deficit falls on its face. I say to my colleagues, last August the U.S. International Trade Commission, the ITC, completed a study on the effects of the China deal on our trade balance. The ITC found that the China deal will increase our trade deficit with China, not lower it. Second of all, it is not at all true that we need PNTR to be able to have trade with China. China is already obligated, under the 1979 bilateral trade agreement, according to our own General Accounting Office, the GAO, to give us all of the benefits by way of tariff reductions that it gives any of the other WTO countries. Even the administration concedes this point. Third of all, PNTR will lead to more imports from China by encouraging multinationals to invest in China manufacturing to export to the U.S. market. That is what this is all about. Big companies could go to China--I will give many examples--they would not have to worry any longer about annual reviews, about normal trade relations. They could go there. People can't organize a union. They are thrown in prison. There is no respect for human rights. There is no respect for people to practice their religion. As a result, they could go there and pay people deplorable wages, under deplorable conditions, and then export back to our country. Let me just be real clear about it. Before the House vote on PNTR-- and I hope colleagues will listen--few noticed that the ITC had predicted that the trade deal with China would significantly increase investment of multinational corporations in China. But after the House vote, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all carried articles laying out what this legislation is really about. Now, as it is in the Senate, and we have the benefit of a little bit more wisdom and knowledge, let me just quote, first of all, an article entitled, ``Playing the China Card,'' from the New York Times: Although the Clinton Administration often listed exports as the headline benefit of broadening trade with China, the real advantage for U.S. companies is probably enhanced rights of investment and ownership there. . . . Most companies try to crack the difficult China market by setting up local operations, often using those plants as export production bases as well. Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say the day after PNTR passed the House in an article entitled, ``House Vote Primes U.S. Firms to Boost Investments in China'': While the debate in Washington focused mainly on the probable lift for U.S. exports to China, many U.S. multinationals have something different in mind. ``This deal is about investment, not exports,'' says Joseph Quinlan, an economist with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. . . . In the tense weeks leading up to last night's vote, business lobbyists emphasized the beneficial effect the agreement would have on U.S. exports to China. They played down its likely impact on investment, leery of sounding supportive of labor union arguments that the deal would prompt companies to move U.S. production to China. But many businessmen concede that investment in China is the prize. . . . Then finally, after the House vote, the U.S. Business and Industrial Council surveyed the web sites of dozens of U.S. multinationals who have been lobbying for PNTR, and they reached similar conclusions: In contrast to the focus in their congressional lobbying and their advertisements, American multinationals say almost nothing about exports when they describe their China business on their web sites. There, the overwhelming emphasis is on supplying the China market--and often other markets, like the U.S. market--from factories they build or acquire or work with in China. . . . Mr. President, this should come as no surprise to colleagues. According to the Economic Policy Institute, U.S. investment in Chinese manufacturing--I am talking about before this vote--shot up from $123 million in 1988 to $4 billion in 1998. The number of U.S. affiliates manufacturing in China rose from 64 in 1989 to 350 in 1997, and the value of their sales rose from $121 million in 1989 to $8 billion in 1997. That is before we pass normal trade relations with China. U.S. agribusiness conglomerates that have been promoting U.S. exports to China as much as anyone are also investing in production facilities there in China. As the Wall Street Journal noted the day after the House vote: Even agriculture companies are getting in on the act. Poultry giant Purdue Farms, Inc. is ratcheting up its investment in China with a joint venture for a processing plant and hatchery near Shanghai. Purdue isn't the only one. Cargill operates a fertilizer blending plant and a malt plant and two feed mills in different areas of China and boasted in a press release last year that it is a ``major exporter of Chinese corn and steel.'' I urge farmers in Minnesota to listen to that. Cargill says: We set up operations in China; we are a major exporter of corn. Steel workers in the Iron Range, listen to that. They don't have to worry about environmental rules and regulations. They don't have to worry about fair labor standards. They don't have to worry about human rights standards that the Chinese Government will impose. They can produce corn well below the cost of production of corn growers in Minnesota, and they themselves brag about the fact that they are a major exporter of Chinese corn. Cargill, Archer-Daniels-Midland, and ConAgra, which have operated in China for years, lobbied hard for a provision in the China trade deal that will let them set up distribution networks that can be used for exports as well as imports. And John Deere has a joint venture with one of China's state-owned companies that sells tractors. If we look at our trade deficit with China, it tells the story. Our trade deficit with China rose 256 percent from 1992 to 1999. Imports from China more than tripled in real terms, while exports grew only 69 percent. Our trade deficit with China jumped $11 billion last year to $68 billion. In 1999, we had a 6-to-1 ratio of imports to exports. We do trade with China. There is a huge trade imbalance. And as U.S. investment in China goes up, that is what is going to happen. As our trade deficit gets worse, China is developing into an export platform for foreign firms that seek the world's cheapest labor and access to the world's largest consumer market--not China but ours. People in China are, by and large, very poor. The market is not China. The market is in this country. The U.S. today absorbs about 40 percent of China's exports, and about 40 percent of China's exports, more than $200 billion in 1998, came from multinational firms operating in China. If this debate is really about investment and not exports, then the question is, Why are so many U.S. corporations so eager to invest in China? The answer that many of these corporations will give is that they want access to China's huge internal market. But as we have seen, most of the production they are investing in is for export to the United States and other foreign markets. There is a good reason for that. This was the same argument made about NAFTA--we want to have this market in Mexico. But the problem is, the wages are so low in these countries, the poverty is so great, we don't have the market. So why are U.S. corporations so interested in relocating production in China? Why are they so interested that we no longer reserve for ourselves the right to annually review normal trade relations with China? The most important reason is they are interested in low cost, and that is a euphemism. What I really mean to say is, they are interested in low wages and the repression of worker rights. That is what is so attractive about investment in China. The year 1994 is the last data we have. I am trying to bring to the floor of the Senate in this debate as much empirical data as I can. Chinese production workers who worked in the factories of the U.S. multinationals earned on average of 83 cents an hour. That is the last year for which the data is available. By way of comparison, the average manufacturing worker today in our country makes $16.87. The State Department human rights report last year confirms the appalling state of labor rights in China. I will quote a few sections. Independent trade unions are illegal. . . The government has not approved the establishment of any independent unions to date. The government continues its effort to stamp out union activity, including through detention or arrest of labor activists. The State Department then goes on to list a number of labor activists who have been imprisoned because they did nothing more than demand the right to be able to form a union so they could bargain collectively and get better wages. They are in prison, and we pay no attention to that. I cite a recent report by the National Labor Committee which should dispel any doubts whether there are irresponsible U.S. corporations taking advantage of these appalling labor conditions. By the way, there are responsible U.S. corporations as well. However, the shame of it is, without any kind of standards, it is what the irresponsible U.S. corporations get away with. The conclusion of the NLC: Recent in-depth investigations of 16 factories in China producing car-stereos, brakes, shoes, sneakers, clothing, TVs, hats, and bags for some of the largest U.S. companies clearly demonstrate that [these corporations] and their contractors in China continue to systematically violate the most fundamental human and worker rights while paying below subsistence wages. The U.S. companies and their contractors operate with impunity in China, often in collaboration with repressive and corrupt local government authorities. NLC investigators found brand name--Kathie Lee/Wal-Mart--handbags being made in a factory ``where 1,000 workers were held under conditions of indentured servitude, forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day, seven days a week, with only one day off a month, while earning an average of 3 cents an hour.'' I hope my colleagues are not going to vote against an amendment that I am going to bring to the floor that is going to deal with basic human rights and another amendment I will bring to the floor dealing with the problem of religious persecution. Continuing from the NLC report: However, after months of work, 46 percent of the workers surveyed earned nothing at all-- They didn't even make 3 cents an hour. in fact, they owed money to the company. The workers were allowed out of the factory for just an hour and a half a day. The workers were fed two dismal meals a day and housed 16 people to one small, crammed dorm room. Many of the workers did not even have enough money to pay for bus fare to leave the factory to look for other work. When the workers protested being forced to work from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seven days a week, for literally pennies an hour, 800 workers were fired. Do Members not think in this trade agreement we might not want to have some conditions calling on the Chinese Government to live up to basic standards of decency? One factory producing brand name sneakers for the U.S. market hires only females between the ages of 18 and 25--another U.S. company in China. The base wage at the factory is 18 cents an hour, and workers need permission to leave the factory grounds. Factory and dorms--where 20 women share one small dorm room, sleeping on triple-level bunk beds--are locked down at 9:00 p.m. every night. When workers in the polishing section could no longer stand the grueling overtime hours and low pay and went on strike, they were all fired. Factory management then lectured the remaining workers that they would not tolerate unions, strikes, bad behavior, or the raising of grievances. I will have an amendment that will say we should condition automatic normal trade relations with China on their living up to the basic standard that people should be able to form an independent union if that is what they believe they should do without being imprisoned. At a plant making brand name--Nike--clothing for American consumers, young workers worked from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., 7 days a week. They made 22 cents an hour. Wal-Mart, by the way, is in China. I think they are paying 14 cents an hour. And another factory manufacturing for export to the U.S. market does not hire anyone older than 25; workers are paid 20 cents an hour and work 11- to 12-hour shifts. I have no doubt that some of our companies--I hope many--want to be responsible employers. But when we don't have any standards and we sign onto trade agreements without any standards whatsoever, we create economic incentives that push in the wrong direction, where the companies wanting to do well by workers are at a competitive disadvantage and it becomes a race to the bottom. In our country--I am proud to say as a former college teacher--among young people is the best organizing of justice, idealism, and activism I have seen in many years. But how can you support the anti-sweatshop campaign, denounce the rapid proliferation of sweatshops all over the world, and denounce the resurgence of sweatshops here in the U.S. and then turn around and promote unregulated investment in China without any conditions whatsoever? I simply say that I seriously question, on the basis of some pretty solid empirical evidence, whether this China deal is going to lift living standards overseas to our levels or whether this China deal and some of our other trade policy is going to lower living standards down to theirs. It is not very hard to figure out what this deal is about. It is going to encourage more investment in China under the conditions I have described. I wish to give two case studies. On July 7, the New York Times ran a story about Zebco Corporation, world-famous makers of fishing reel, which moved most of its production to China in June. Most of Zebco's 240 workers will eventually lose their jobs. They said: With most of Zebco's competitors having already set up fishing tackle plants in China, allowing them to undercut Zebco's prices at Wal-Marts everywhere, Zebco began a year ago to explore the possibility of moving its own lines to China. The company found that it could commission Chinese factories to produce and deliver reels to the United States for one-third less than it could make them at home, company officials said. As assembly-line factory jobs go, Zebco offers ordinary pay but solid benefits, including Christmas gifts of stock certificates. Workers returned the loyalty. Turnover was low. This is what it was all about. Then, earlier this year, the company pushed assembly-line workers to raise their output by at least 10 percent a month, and China became a cattle prod. That is in the New York Times piece. Still, the shop floor fell into stunned silence one Monday afternoon when the president of the company read a brief statement as first-shift workers finished their day. Zebco was moving some production to China. Many of those listening would lose their jobs. Zebco reels no longer commanded an ``adequate profit,'' the statement said. Many leading United States companies are like Zebco. They face competitive pressure to save money by producing in China--often exporting back to the United States--rather than making goods here to sell in China. The workers as Zebco are not alone. Warren Davis is a courageous, outspoken United Auto Workers leader. He is their regional director for Ohio and Pennsylvania. In a recent letter, he told me about 90 workers at a plant he represents who are all going to lose their jobs because of the conditions that I have described. He writes: Nestaway Corporation has been under contract with the Rubbermaid Corporation of Wooster, Ohio. It is losing its critical contract because Rubbermaid claims it can no longer afford to buy Nestaway's sink strainers. . . . The victims are the workers at Nestaway Corporation in Garfield Heights, Ohio. They are mainly single parents with poor prospects for finding any other job that pay a wage comparable to the $9 an hour they had been paid. . . . Basically, it is the same thing. They can't compete. I continue to quote from him: My question to you is, for whom does the bell toll? Because this is not just about the jobs of Region 2 members of the United Auto Workers. This is about all of American manufacturing. And it is about the debate in the Senate. The stories of workers at Zebco and Nestaway tell a larger story. We have an exploding trade deficit with China, and it is only going to get worse because without any kind of conditions, without any kind of human rights standards, without any kind of fair labor standards, without any kind of minimal standards for human rights, what we are going to see is more and more companies not exporting but investing in China, going to China, paying low wages. This becomes the export platform, and then the products are exported back to our country. According to the EPI, our exploding trade deficit with China cost over 683,000 jobs between 1992 and 1999. This trade deal with China will cost even more--over 870,000 jobs, just looking into the immediate future. Well, let me now make two final points in my opening statement. It is commonly argued that everybody benefits, that it is exports, and I have tried to take that on. We get the arguments of the trade agreement, and I have tried to take that on. It is argued that, in fact, this is a policy that will help people in China. I have tried to take that argument on. Let me simply talk about the inequality in our country. Even free trade economists have now concluded that existing trade policy is the single largest cause of growing inequality since 1979. We have a booming economy, but we have the widest gap between the rich and the poor of any industrialized nation in the world. Inequality, both within countries and between countries, has dramatically increased. When we went through the debate on NAFTA, the argument was there will be winners and losers, but we will be better off as a country, and we certainly will be there to compensate the losers; we will have job training and education programs and all of the rest. But do you know what? That was fine sentiment expressed on the floor of the Senate, but after NAFTA was passed and we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, support for the training and assistance suddenly dried up. All of the Senators and all of the Representatives who I hear say, ``Yes, there will be losers and we are certainly going to have to do better''--I would like to hear those Senators and Representatives talk about health security for people in this country, affordable child care, good education for their children, increasing the minimum wage. But quite often you find just the opposite. I wish to talk about an amendment I am going to bring to the floor of the Senate, which I think is terribly important. Part of what is going on, unfortunately, with our trade policy--and given the size of China, this will sharply widen the inequality. This will exacerbate this, I think, most serious question of all. The message is, if you organize, we are gone; we will go to these other countries. The message is that if you want to work for more than 3 cents an hour, you don't get our investment. But if this is all about workers, and if this is all about coming through for working people in our country--making sure that the jobs we have in our country are good jobs, and there are decent health care benefits for people, and they can support their families--I think we will have to look at the very strong correlation between unionization and good jobs and good working benefits--and that is a well established correlation--and, therefore, the need to give people the right to organize. Right now in the country during an organizing drive, in 91 percent of the cases employers require employees to listen to the companies but deny the employees any opportunity to listen to both sides. I am going to introduce a right-to-organize amendment. That should no longer be the case. Employees should be allowed to hear from both sides. In 31 percent of all the organizing campaigns, employers illegally fire union sympathizers with virtual impunity. Ten thousand workers are fired illegally every year. It is profitable to do so. In this amendment, I say if a company breaks the law and illegally fires that worker, that company is going to be faced with stiff financial penalties. In one-third of the cases, even after the employees say they want to join a union so they can make better wages, the companies refuse to negotiate. This amendment will call, therefore, for mediation to be followed by binding arbitration. I hope my colleagues will support this right-to-organize amendment. I think the way our country is going is that people and families are more concerned about the right to be able to organize and bargain collectively, earn a decent living, and support their families. I say especially to the Democrats that you ought to support this amendment. You ought to support this amendment because this is all about the basic right of people to be able to organize and to do better for themselves and their families. This is all about being on the side of working people. Do I not hear that the Democratic Party is on the side of working people? I have an amendment that will give Democrats, and I hope Republicans, an opportunity to be on the side of working people. In conclusion, we have a choice. I think the choice is really clear. We are in a global economy. We are in an international economy. The question is, Are there going to be any new rules? We live in a democracy. My father taught me more than anything else to love my country, and I love my country because we live in a democracy. I get to speak on the floor of the Senate. Citizens get to speak up. We have a voice. On the one hand, we have the current model of a business trade policy designed to serve mainly the interests of multinational corporations, Wall Street financial institutions, and global business conglomerates. This is the model of globalization that has generated such outrage and certainly skepticism on the part of most ordinary citizens in the country. Good for them. I think there is a 2-to-1 margin--as I remember the recent polling data--of people who say they don't believe these trading agreements are going to lead to good job prospects but are going to more likely take away good jobs for Americans. Just think about it for a moment. We passed not too long ago the CBI initiative. That is all about, as my colleague said, helping poor working people in the Caribbean countries. How do you help poor working people in the Caribbean countries where they don't even have the right to work? They can't join a union. The Caribbean countries with the fastest growing exports have experienced--are you ready for this?--the steepest decline in wages. So often I hear from my colleagues: Well, Paul, we know you support working people but do not seem to be supporting the poor in these developing nations. I say to my colleagues that every time I go to a trade conference, I look for the poor. I never see the poor at these trade conferences. I see the elites from these countries. I don't see the poor represented. In any case, with the Caribbean countries, let me cite one very interesting correlation. Those countries with the fastest growing exports and that have the lowest wages have seen the steepest decline in wages. The question is, Who benefits from expanding trade benefits without any enforceable labor standards? Who benefits from trade and investment policies that discourage rather than encourage the right to organize? Not American workers; not workers in the other countries; not the poor in other countries. This is not win-win; this is lose-lose. I will not cite a lot of statistics about the global economy, but for a moment I want to cite a few to point out to colleagues that many foreign countries have not fared so well under this ``Washington consensus trade and investment policy'' of recent decades. More than 80 countries have per capita income lower than they did in 1970, lower in 1999 than in 1978 by 200 million poor people living in abject poverty. Only 33 countries have achieved and sustained 3-percent growth between 1980 and 1996, and in 59 countries the per capita GNP actually declined. The number of poor continues to grow throughout the world. There are 100 million people in industrialized countries living below the poverty line, and 35 million of them are unemployed. There are 1.3 billion people in the developing world earning less than $1 per day and who have no access to clean water for themselves or their children. You are coming out here on the floor of the Senate and trying to argue that trade policy has been a great benefit for the poor in the world. I don't think the empirical data support that. Let me conclude where I started. I am an internationalist. I hear all this discussion about how this debate and this vote is all about whether or not you believe we live and work in a global economy. I take seriously those words that we live and work in a global economy. It certainly is true. But may I point out to my colleagues the implications of this point of view. If we live in a global economy and if we are truly concerned about human rights, then we can no longer concern ourselves only with human rights at home. If we live in a global economy and we truly care about religious freedom, then we can no longer concern ourselves only with religious freedom at home. If we live in a global economy and work in a global economy and we care about the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively and earn a better standard of living for themselves and their children, then we can no longer concern ourselves with labor rates only at home. If we truly care about the environment and we live in a global economy, then we can no longer concern ourselves with environmental protection only at home. Raising living standards is not only the right thing to do, it is necessary if we are to maintain our own living standard. We need to ensure that prosperity is shared more broadly so that the world economy is stabilized and that healthy and sustainable products are created for our exporters. When people make 3 cents an hour and are poor, they cannot buy what we produce in our country. I am proud to associate myself with those who have been engaged in human rights work. I think I care more about human rights issues than almost any other set of issues in my family background. They have understood a basic truth; it is this: That Americans can never be indifferent to the circumstances of exploited and abused people in the far reaches of the globe. When the most basic human rights and freedoms of others are infringed upon or endangered, we are diminished by our failure to speak out for human rights. When we embrace the cause of human rights, we reaffirm one of the greatest traditions of American democracy, but we are not embracing the cause of human rights with this trade bill. There is another truth, and it is reaching a larger and larger public. The well-being of our families, the well-being of ordinary wage earners in the United States of America, depends to a considerable degree on the welfare of people who we have never met, people who live halfway across the planet. Our fates are intertwined. Some of my colleagues say the global markets will take care of themselves; they cannot be tamed; there is nothing we should do; this is laissez faire economics at its best. I point my colleagues to the lessons of our own economic history. As we debate this piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate--and I will have an amendment that will deal with religious freedom, an amendment that deals with human rights; I will have an amendment that deals with exports from China from forced prison labor; I will have an amendment that deals with a right to organize in China; and I will have an amendment that deals with the right to organize in our own country-- let Members for a moment think about this debate in an historic context. I heard my colleague, Senator Baucus, for whom I have great respect, say this is a very important debate. Senator Moynihan, who will retire--and the Senate and our country will miss him--believes this is one of the most important votes we will cast. I agree. I think this is one of the most important debates that has taken place in the Senate. I deal with a sense of history. One-hundred years ago, our country moved from an economy of local economic units to an industrialized economy. It was a wrenching economic transformation, a major seismic change in our economy. We were moving toward a national, industrialized economy 100 years ago, at the beginning of the last century. As that happened, there was a coalition--some of them were evangelical, some were populist, some were farmers, some were women, some were working people--that made a set of demands. The farmers said: We want antitrust action because these big conglomerates are pushing us off the land or they were exploiting the consumers. They want a 40-hour workweek. We want the right to organize. We want some protections against exploiting children, child labor. Women said: We want the right to vote. We want direct election of the U.S. Senators. They made those demands, and nobody thought they had a chance. The Pinkertons killed anyone trying to organize a union. All too often that happened. The media was hostile to this set of demands, by and large. Journalists followed this debate. I am not bashing all journalists, but in general the media was not supportive. And believe it or not, money probably dominated politics even more than it does today. However, those women and men felt, as citizens of a democracy, they had the right to demand for themselves and their families all they thought was right and all they had the courage to demand. They didn't win everything, but a lot of their demands became the law of the land and their collective efforts made our country better. Their efforts amounted to an effort to civilize a new national economy. So it is today, 100 years later. These amendments I will bring to the floor of the Senate reflect an effort on the part of people in the United States of America and others throughout the world to say, yes, we live in a new global economy, but just as 100 years ago men and women organized and had the courage to make that new national economy work for them, we make a set of demands. We bring a set of issues before the Senate. We call for votes on amendments which basically say that we need to make sure that this new global economy works for working people, works for family farmers, works for the environment, works for human rights. Mr. President, we want to make sure we can civilize this new global economy so that it works for most of the people. I ask unanimous consent that the next two Democratic speakers be Senator Dorgan and Senator Torricelli, and that Senator Torricelli's statement be considered a morning business statement, after Senator Gorton speaks.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think Senator Bryan is going to speak so I will take only 2 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I may take more time later on tonight, but since it is not clear exactly how the schedule is going to proceed, let me thank Senator Lott for his commitment to a good, thorough, substantive debate on whether or not we should or should not enter into a review of normal trade relations with China. I could speak for many hours about this, but I will have a number of amendments. One of them will reflect the work of a very important religious group, the U.S. Commission on Religious Rights and Religious Freedom, which we will talk about, criteria that should be met, and focus on the right of people in China to practice their religion without persecution. Another will be a human rights amendment. Another will deal with prison labor conditions in China. Another will deal with the right of people to form unions in China. Finally, there will be a very important amendment for people to organize in our own country. Part of what is going on here is the concern within this sort of broad international framework that quite often the message for people in this country is, if you organize, we are gone. We will go to China or another country and pay 12 cents an hour or 3 cents an hour. The message to people in these countries is, if you should dare to form a union, then you don't get the investment. I want to focus on the right to organize and labor law reform in our own country. I am an internationalist. We are in an international economy. I do not want to see an embargo with China. We will trade with China. I do not want to have a cold war with China. I want to see better relations. I think the real question is what the terms of the trade will be, who will decide, who will benefit, and who will be asked to sacrifice. I hope this new global economy will be an economy that works, not only for large multinationals but for human rights, for religious rights, for the right of people to organize, for the environment, and for our wage earners. My amendments will be within that framework. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I rise today to address the serious and widespread problem of international trafficking in persons, particularly women and children, for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor, and to seek your continued support for legislation aimed at curbing this horrific crime. Trafficking in persons becomes more insidious and widespread everyday. For example, every year approximately one million women and children are forced into the sex trade against their will. A recent CIA analysis of the international trafficking of women into the United States reports that as many as 50,000 women and children each year are brought into the United States and forced to work as prostitutes, forced laborers and servants. Others credibly estimate that the number is probably much higher. Those 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. However, upon arrival in destination countries, these victims are often stripped of their passports and held against their will, some in slave-like conditions. Rape, intimidation and violence are commonly employed by traffickers to control their victims and to prevent them from seeking help. Trafficking rings are often run by criminals operating through nominally reputable agencies. In some cases overseas, police and immigration officials of other nations participate in or benefit from trafficking. In other cases, lack of awareness or complacency among government officials, such as border patrol and consular officers, 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. In April my esteemed colleague from Kansas and I introduced separate bills to combat trafficking in persons. I introduced S. 2414, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and he introduced S. 2449, the International Trafficking Act of 2000. But, although we earlier introduced these separate bills, we would like to relay to you the truly bipartisan effort this has been. This effort is reflected in the bill we passed today. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 is a comprehensive bill that aims to prevent trafficking in persons, provide protection and assistance to those who have been trafficked, and strengthen prosecution and punishment of those responsible for trafficking. It is designed to help federal law enforcement officials expand anti- trafficking efforts here and abroad; to expand domestic anti- trafficking and victim assistance efforts; and to assist non- governmental organizations, governments and others worldwide who are providing critical assistance to victims of trafficking. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 addresses the underlying problems which fuel the trafficking industry by promoting public anti-trafficking awareness campaigns and initiatives to enhance economic opportunity, such as micro-credit lending programs and skills training, for those most susceptible to trafficking. It also increases protections and services for trafficking victims by establishing programs designed to assist in the safe reintegration of victims into their community, and ensure that such programs address both the physical and mental health needs of trafficking victims. Further, the bills seek to stop the practice of immediately deporting victims back to potentially dangerous situations by providing them interim immigration relief and the time necessary to bring charges against those responsible for their condition. It also toughens current federal trafficking penalties, criminalizing all forms of trafficking in persons and establishing punishment commensurate with the heinous nature of this crime. 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 authorizes the President to suspend assistance to the worst violators on the list of countries which do not meet these minimum standards. This discretionary approach provides the flexibility needed to combat the complex, multi-faceted, and often multi-jurisdictional nature of this crime, while maintaining the prospect of tough enforcement against governments who persistently ignore, or whose officials are even complicit in, trafficking within their own borders. It allows Congress to monitor closely the progress of countries in their fight against trafficking and gives the Administration flexibility to couple its diplomatic efforts to combat trafficking with targeted action that can be tailored to the individual country involved. Since we began working on this issue, Senator Brownback and I have met with trafficking victims, after-care providers, and human rights advocates from around the world who have reminded us again and again of the horrible, widespread and growing nature of this human rights abuse. Today this Chamber has taken an important first step toward the elimination of trafficking in persons. We are thankful for your support.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if it is OK with Senator Brownback, I want to briefly respond to my colleague from Montana. I will do it under 10 minutes, to anticipate the debate we are going to have on China. I think some of this debate has already become confused. My father was born in Odessa, Ukraine, then moved to Russia in the Far East Siberia. His father was a hatter trying to stay ahead of the czarist troops--Jewish. He then moved to Harbin, then to Peking, then came over to the United States of America when he was 17, in 1914, 3 years before the revolution. He then was going to go back, because first it was the Social Democrats but then the Bolsheviks, the Communists, took over, and his family told him not to come back. I believe his father lost all of his family to Stalin. I think they were all murdered, because all the letters stopped. My father is no longer alive. He spoke 10 languages fluently and was really--you would have liked him, Mr. President. My father taught me that we should value human rights. Our country is a leader in this area. When we turn our gaze away from the persecution of people and the violation of human rights of people in the world, we diminish ourselves. This debate we are going to have after Labor Day is not about whether or not we should have trade with China. We have trade with China. We have a tremendous amount of trade. In fact, we have a huge trade deficit, I think to the tune of about $70 billion. It is not about whether we should have an embargo of China like an embargo of Cuba. I don't think the embargo of Cuba makes much sense, and certainly no one I know is recommending an embargo of China. It is not about whether or not we want to isolate China. China is not going to be isolated. China is very much a part of the international economy. The debate is about whether or not we maintain for ourselves the right to annually review trade relations with China so we at least have some small amount of leverage when it comes to human rights. According to the State Department report last year on human rights in China: The Government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. Abuses includes instances of extrajudicial killings, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, and denial of due process. The Commission on Religious Freedom chaired by David Saperstein recommended that we not automatically grant normal trade relations with China because of the religious persecution in China and laid out a series of criteria that should be met, and that will be the first amendment I will introduce. Yes, to us giving China most favored nation status. But not until they at least meet basic, simple, elementary criteria so the people in China have the right to practice their religion. Are we going to turn our gaze away from that? According to Amnesty International, ``throughout China mass summary executions continue to be carried out. At least 6,000 death sentences and 3,500 executions were officially recorded last year.'' The real figures are believed to be much higher. In the debate, I will talk about Wei Jingsheng and Harry Wu--people, in addition to these statistics. But let me be clear to my colleagues. After all the discussion about all the economic relations having led to opening up society and it has all changed, the human rights record has deteriorated. There is not one Senator who can come to the floor and make the argument that, because of trade relations--I understand investment opportunities making a lot of money--the human rights record has improved in China, or that the situation in Tibet has improved, or that people now can practice their religion. It is not true. Don't we want to maintain just a little bit of leverage and just say we have the right to annually review our trade relations with China? One other point. I think what you are going to see is not more exports to China. I am going to hold every single Senator and I am going to hold the administration accountable as well. The President came to my State of Minnesota. He said we were going to have all these exports in agriculture, and it was going to help out family farmers who were struggling to survive. I don't know if that is going to be the case. There are 700 million farmers in China. I do know this. What is more likely to happen is there will be more exports in China and multinational corporations will go to China and China will become even more of a low-wage export platform or, for that matter, you will have large grain companies producing corn in China well below the cost of production for family farmers in our own country. Wal-Marts pay 14 cents an hour. Other U.S. companies pay 5 cents and 6 cents an hour. If you should try to organize a union in China, you would wind up in prison. So I will have three other amendments, and I will yield the floor on this. I will have an amendment that deals with forced prison labor conditions in China and says: Enough of this, if we are going to have normal trade relations. I will have another amendment that says the people in China should have the right to form independent unions and not wind up in prison. And I will have a final amendment that will basically say that in our State, our workers should have the right to organize; there should be labor law reform; no longer should it just be the company that gets to talk to employees during an organizing drive; no longer should companies be able to illegally fire workers, have it be profitable, and not have to pay stiff back penalties, back fines. We are forever being told now that we live in a global economy. And that is true. But the implications of that statement are seldom recognized. To me that means, if we truly care about human rights, we can no longer just be concerned about human rights at home. If we live in a global economy and we truly care about religious freedom, then we can no longer just be concerned about religious freedom at home. If we are in a global economy and we truly care about the rights of organizers to organize and be able to make a decent living so they can take care of their families, then we have to be concerned not just about the rights of organizers in our country but organizers in the world. And if we truly care about the environment, then we can no longer concern ourselves with just environmental protections at home, but environmental protections in other countries as well. Do you know that a large majority of the Senate is all for this-- automatically extending normal trade relations with China or most favored nation trade status? Do you know what the polls show? The polls show Americans oppose eliminating any review of China's human rights record by 65 to 18 percent; 67 percent oppose China's admission to the WTO, although that is not what this debate will be about; and 83 percent of the people in our country support inclusion of strong environmental and labor standards in future trade agreements. My colleague--1 minute left--my colleague from Montana, whom I enjoy, said: I am going to call on all Senators to vote against all amendments. I am going to tell Senators a lot of these amendments are substantive and they are serious. Look at what we had happen on several of these tax bills, the majority leader came out after we had passed amendments and then introduced an amendment that wiped out all those amendments. I am going to remind Senators of that precedent. I am going to remind Senators that you cannot go back home and explain with much credibility to the people you represent that you would not vote for the people in China to have the right to practice their religion; you would not vote for basic support for human rights; you would not vote for people to organize a union and not wind up in prison; you would not vote for labor law reform because you said: Oh, well, you see, we had to go into conference committee and we had to keep it clean and I could not vote for that. A, that is not true; B, it is the ultimate Washington insider argument. One has to vote for what one thinks is right. One has to vote for the substance of each one of these amendments. That is the challenge I present to my colleagues. I look forward to this debate. I yield the floor.