[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.
____________________