[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4470-S4472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3433

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not take more than about 10 minutes. I said to 
my colleague from Oklahoma as he left, I wanted to respond to his 
comments. There will be more time for discussion later. What is at 
issue, the Senator from Oklahoma does not agree with the heart of the 
trade adjustment assistance package, and he has been clear about this. 
He does not like the fact that with the trade adjustment assistance we 
are now going to help people who are out of work, cover health care 
costs.
  People were saying: We are out of work. The COBRA monthly payments 
could be $700, maybe $900 a month, and they cannot afford it, they are 
out of work.
  I heard the Republican whip say this was like the road to socialism. 
The ideological objection is in the trade adjustment package we are 
actually going to provide some help for people to be able to afford 
health care costs. That is a good part of his indignation. He goes on 
to say we are extending it to steelworkers.
  That is true. We are talking about people who have bled for an 
industry and have been abandoned by trade policies for the last 30 
years, including the taconite workers on the Iron Range.
  This small, modest amendment says, for 1 year, let's include these 
retired workers, whose companies, such as LTV, have declared bankruptcy 
as a result of Government abandonment and neglect, and who are now 
under very hard times through no fault of their own. We should at least 
for 1 year pick up the health care benefits of the retirees because the 
companies have walked away.
  There is a window, all together, 4 years to pick up, if other 
companies go under; a 1-year bridge for people who are terrified they 
now are going to incur all the health care costs that they never 
dreamed they would ever be faced with as they planned the later years 
of their life.
  My colleague has trouble with the numbers. Last week, the 
administration came out and said it would be $800 million in 1 year, 
and now we have, from the Joint Tax Committee, $180 million over 10 
years.
  My colleague from Oklahoma says: Why should we be spending this kind 
of money? We are helping people. This is the road to socialism. We are 
helping people. If we help these people, there might be other help for 
other people on health care benefits.
  Maybe someday we will have universal health care coverage, health 
security for all. Most citizens in the country want that.
  I say one thing to the Senator from Oklahoma--and I am sure we will 
pick up on this debate tomorrow--any day of the year I will stake my 
political reputation, being a Senator from Minnesota on $180 million 
over 10 years to help steelworker retirees, people who have given a lot 
of blood, sweat, and tears to our country over $108 billion--I didn't 
say $180 million--$108 billion to do away with the estate tax, with the 
vast majority of the dollars going to millionaires.
  Those are the priorities we have here. I hear my colleague say: By 
gosh, we don't have the money. We are running into budget problems and 
the question of the deficit. Vote for tax cuts; Robin Hood in reverse; 
40, 50 percent to the top 1 percent, and then eliminate the alternative 
minimum tax; more loopholes for multinationals. On the House side, do 
an energy bill of $32 billion; about two-thirds of the benefits going 
to energy companies, oil companies, that made $40 billion in profits; 
then talk about completely doing away with the estate tax. Give it all 
away. Then bleed the economy further of another $400, $500 or $600 
billion over the second 10 years and then say: We don't have the 
money. We can't possibly help people who are out of work. We can't help 
the retired taconite workers. We can't help people who do not have any 
health care coverage. We can't help senior citizens on prescription 
drug benefits.

  I heard my colleague say we should do that together. Yes, we should. 
But you watch and see what it is going to be. What I hear so far coming 
from Republicans is: We will help only those who are low income; we 
will not help the other 75 percent of senior citizens; and/or: The 
premiums will be too high, or the copays will be too high, or the 
deductibles will be too high, or it will

[[Page S4471]]

not be catastrophic coverage. And they will say we cannot afford to do 
it and we cannot afford to provide help for education for our schools, 
for our kids in Minnesota or anywhere in the country. Each time, it is 
the same argument: We do not have the money.
  Here is what is going on tonight. You basically do tax cuts so you 
don't have the resources, and then you come out and say we don't have 
any money. Then you come out and say you are opposed to this because it 
is the road to socialism because you don't like the trade adjustment 
assistance package because it provides some help for people who are out 
of work so they can afford health care coverage.
  The most terrifying thing for people when they are out of work, next 
to losing the job, is they know, depending on their seniority, in 6 
months or a year they are not going to have any health care coverage. 
That is one of the best things to this bill. We come up with a small 
amendment saying we represent steelworkers, taconite workers, and we 
have this crisis, and we have this industry that has been torn asunder 
as a result of horrible, horrendous trade policies.
  People who bled for the industry, bled for the country, worked hard 
all their lives, now are terrified. They never thought these companies 
would declare bankruptcy and walk away from them. Can't we provide them 
with some help for 1 year?
  You would think, from listening to my colleague from Oklahoma, this 
is just about the most irresponsible, horrible thing that could ever be 
done on the floor of the Senate. I disagree. I think it is a good thing 
to help hard-working people. I think it is a good thing to help 
families. I think it is a good thing to help retirees who now no longer 
have their health care benefits because the steel companies, the LTVs 
of this world, have declared bankruptcy and have walked away from them.
  I think it is a good thing to have trade adjustment assistance. I 
think it is a good thing that it is more generous. I think it is a good 
thing to help people who are flat on their backs through no fault of 
their own, not because they are slackers or lazy or don't want to 
work--just the opposite. I think it is a really good thing. I think 
this should be what our priorities are about. I think it is all about 
values. I think it is all about helping people.
  So I beg to disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma. He has a passion 
for his point of view. I have passion for my point of view. He argues 
his case well. I give him full credit. I think it is important that 
people do that. But any day of the year--any day of the year--I would 
rather be out here for taconite workers on the Iron Range, as would the 
Presiding Officer, Senator Dayton. Any day in the year, I would rather 
be out here talking about health care benefits and prescription drug 
benefits, affordable housing, education--and, yes, we have a difference 
of opinion.
  I am sorry my colleague from Oklahoma is not here right now. We will 
debate it more. I will never say this in a shrill way. I think my 
colleague from Oklahoma--listening to what he said--states his 
ideological position. And I don't mean that in a bad way. That is to 
say he has a set of beliefs which basically say that when it comes to 
many pressing issues of people's lives, there is not much that 
government can or should do. I think that is what his position is.

  That is not my position. I think this philosophy when it comes to the 
most pressing issues of people's lives--and we are talking about a very 
pressing issue for retired taconite workers on the Iron Range, and for 
retired steelworkers, that there is nothing the Government can or 
should do--I think it works well when you own your own large 
corporation and when you are wealthy, but it does not work well for the 
majority of people in the country.
  So I think it is a very good thing we are doing here. I hope we will 
get support against what is an effort to filibuster this amendment.
  Again, I finish tonight because we are going to debate on another 
bill and this amendment will be out here until Tuesday. Frankly, 
steelworkers, I will tell you what. Union people, workers, other 
neighbors, families, hard-working people, people who believe that 
something ought to be done to help people who are really hurting right 
now, you are going to need to be in touch with Senators because right 
now we have a majority of votes but they are filibustering this 
amendment. They do not want this amendment to pass. I think in the next 
several days there will be a very important debate, and I hope we will 
have strong support from our colleagues.
  I am delighted there are Republican Senators who are supporting this 
amendment. Frankly, I think--I hope and pray--almost every single 
Democratic is supporting this amendment. I think it is very consistent 
with what Democrats believe.
  Maybe that is what this debate is about. Maybe it is just a good, 
honest difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans. We 
believe there is a role for government to provide help for people. We 
believe it is a good thing to do. Government can play a positive role.
  This is 1 year, and, God knows, Senator Mikulski was saying we have 
an identification and connection to people here and we are not going to 
let up on it.
  So I have spoken my piece in response to what the Senator from 
Oklahoma said. I know there will be more debate and discussion. I know 
there are Republicans who support this amendment. We are dealing with a 
filibuster in an effort to block this. We have a majority vote, Senator 
Mikulski, I believe, but now we have to continue to work hard, and I 
think working families all across the country are going to have to be 
heard from over the next several days. I believe that will help.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I 
congratulate the Senator from Minnesota. I thank him for his passion. I 
thank him for his persistence. I thank him for his eloquence on this 
issue and others on behalf of people from his own State and all over 
our country who feel pretty powerless. They feel powerless because of 
forces outside of their control, such as unfair trade practices. We 
thank you for speaking up about this. I look forward to our continued 
debate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland and 
tell her there is nothing I am more proud of than to be on the floor 
doing this amendment with the Senator from Maryland and Senator 
Rockefeller and Senator Stabenow and the Presiding Officer, Senator 
Dayton, Senator Specter, and others.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We know there is an important debate on NATO, so we are 
not going to continue this discussion until later on, over the weekend.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I wanted to get your attention and that of the Senator from 
Minnesota before he leaves. I have watched this debate all day. Of 
course, I have listened to these Senators many times off the floor, 
both of them, as it relates to steelworkers. I would say the same thing 
on behalf of Senator Rockefeller.
  We do not make steel in Nevada. We have some retired steelworkers in 
Nevada who have conversed with me, and this issue is important to them. 
But I want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand how the 
people of Maryland, West Virginia, and Minnesota should feel about the 
advocacy of these three Senators on this issue.
  I haven't been in Congress as long as the Senator from Maryland, but 
I have been in Congress a long time. I have not seen the passion on an 
issue, that I can recall, that I have seen on this issue with these 
Senators. If these three Senators are not true believers on this issue, 
they do not exist on any issue in the world.
  I cannot say enough: I support what you want 105 percent. You have 
made a case so clear that I cannot imagine that people would in any way 
want to stop these steelworkers from getting what they are entitled 
to--what I believe they are entitled to. They went to work for these 
companies in good faith. I think they should get what they deserve.
  I just didn't want these two Senators to leave--I am sorry Senator 
Rockefeller is not here--without speaking for virtually every 
Democratic Senator and a few Republican Senators who are supporting us 
on this issue: I think it is too bad there is a filibuster.
  I think it is too bad. I hear all the time--I spend a lot of time on 
this floor--``give us an up-or-down vote.''

[[Page S4472]]

That is what we want, an up-or-down vote. That is what we want on this 
issue.
  Let's come out here. They are always saying: Let us have a vote. I 
want to have a vote on this. I would like to test this to see how many 
votes we can get. I think it is too bad we are going to be forced to 
try to get 60 votes. And I think, for the work that has been done on 
this issue, it is too bad.
  But I hope with the time that goes by, that by next week people in 
these States will rise up and say: You better vote for this. I am not 
counting out, by one second, the fact that we can't get 60 votes. I 
think we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for not 
only his kind but encouraging words. You see, I agree with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend.
  Anyone else who wants to have a conversation, leave the floor. The 
Senator from Maryland has the floor.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Again, I know Senator Biden is bringing a very important NATO debate 
here, and I do not want to delay it.
  What concerns me about our amendment is that we are not going to get 
an up-and-down vote. It is going to be hidden behind parliamentary 
procedures. We thank Senator Nickles for coming and at least engaging 
in an honest set of questions with us. They were questions worthy of 
debate: How much does it cost? Is a 35-year-old eligible? All those 
questions.
  But to have an empty Chamber, to threaten a filibuster, and not even 
come here and talk, and then, again, hide behind a filibuster, where we 
have to get cloture, and go through so many hoops, I think the 
discussion of trade is important, I think our amendment is a critical 
one, but let's have it, and get rid of all this hiding behind 
parliamentary maneuvers that require 60 votes.
  So we really ask our colleagues who agree with us to come to the 
floor. And for those who don't, let's just have it out. We respect 
them. We respect their opinions. We think ours are the best. We hope we 
prevail. We think the Senate way, the American way is, let's just come 
and let the majority prevail and not need a supermajority to overcome a 
parliamentary obstacle. Let's have a majority vote on a policy issue.
  I thank the Chair and look forward to continuing this conversation 
later on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both Senators.
  I say to the majority whip, Senator Reid, that the thing I like best 
about his comments--and I appreciated them all--is that I, too, think 
we can get to 60. That is now what we have to do because there is an 
effort to filibuster this bill. But we are going to do everything we 
can.
  There are a lot of working families who are going to be heard from 
over the next several days. And that is what we are going to do. I 
appreciate so much what he said. We have the majority.
  Now we have to deal with an effort to block this with a filibuster. 
There will be more debate and more discussion. Believe me, this is 
going to go on for some time.
  I know we are going to move on to other important legislation for 
tonight.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                    Commending the Presiding Officer

  Mr. REID. I would just comment, I appreciate very much your 
presiding. You have done such a great job upon coming to the Senate and 
presiding. You make sure that the Senate has the dignity that it is 
supposed to have. And I know you were taught by Senator Byrd. And he is 
the best teacher we have for Senate procedures.
  I personally appreciate your action taken just a few minutes ago. And 
everyone should understand, the Senator from Minnesota is bipartisan in 
keeping this place quiet. Whether it is a Democratic Senator or a 
Republican Senator, Republican staff member or Democratic staff member, 
you treat them equally. I appreciate that very much. And I speak for 
all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, now that the debate has concluded--and under 
the previous order, it indicates that when the last vote occurred, we 
would move to the NATO matter--I ask the Chair to call it up.

                          ____________________