[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 136 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10484-S10487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3009
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I come to the floor for now the sixth time with a
piece of legislation I have introduced. At other times, Senator Kennedy
has spoken about this, Senator Clinton has spoken about this, and
Senator Durbin has spoken about this. Many have. I come to the floor to
ask that the Senate proceed--I will not make the unanimous consent
request yet; I don't see colleagues from the other side of the aisle
here yet--that we pass calendar No. 619, S. 3009. This is a bill to
extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks for workers in
every State, plus 7 weeks in additional benefits for workers in States
with the highest levels of unemployment. This extends the expiration
date of the temporary benefits program we passed last March, which
otherwise would terminate December 31.
Every time we have tried to do this, my colleagues on the other
side--usually it has been the Senator from Oklahoma--have come out and
objected. What I have heard my Republican colleagues on the other side
of the aisle say is that they need more time to look at this. It is
seven pages long. We have been at this now for well over, I think, 2
weeks and, really, one page a day certainly can be read.
I have also heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
that they want to work with us. We have been trying to sit down with
staff on the other side because we believe we should not leave until we
get this done.
One of the points my colleague from Oklahoma has been making is that
we are talking about 26 weeks; in other words, if we take what we did
in March--people then had 13 weeks of benefits--and they now get an
additional 13 weeks of benefits, that is 26 weeks.
I say to my colleague from Oklahoma and other Republicans that we
have about 900,000 men and women who have run out of unemployment
benefits in the country--20,000 in Minnesota; 50,000 in Minnesota in
February; close to 2 million in February of next year--and extending 13
weeks of benefits for people who have utilized the 13 weeks we gave
them earlier is exactly what we did in the early 1990s on a 97-to-3
vote, with my colleague from Oklahoma, among others, supporting it.
I do not understand what the problem is. Having been back home and
traveled the State a lot, I am not going to make an argument that I
would consider to be a false dichotomy; that is to say, people are just
focused on the economy and nothing else. I say people are worried about
a lot of issues. They are worried about Iraq and what is the right
thing to do, they are worried about terrorism, and they are worried
about the economy. People want us to focus on the economy, and they
want us to put people first. They want us to focus on people, and there
are a lot of actions we could take. We could raise the minimum wage. We
could invest in education and job training because a lot of workers are
trying to go from one job to another, and they need to have that
opportunity.
At the very minimum, could we not at least have enough of a sense of
compassion and extend unemployment benefits to people who are out of
work, through no fault of their own, and have run out of these
benefits? This is the sixth time I have asked consent to move forward
and pass this legislation.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question.
Mr. REID. Has the Senator found at home what I found at home this
past Monday? I had a group of veterans with whom I met at 8 o'clock in
the morning in Henderson, NV. For the first time I can remember, an
elderly World War II veteran came up to me and said: Would you speak to
my grandson? His grandson was a graduate of the University of
Pittsburgh, had a grade point average of 3.7, and could not find a job.
At that meeting, I had two young men come up to me, both of whom are
college graduates and could not find jobs.
Has the Senator found that not only those people seeking entry-level
jobs
[[Page S10485]]
are having trouble, but people who have been laid off at factories and
other industries and recent college graduates cannot find work? Has the
Senator found that?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Nevada, in
Minnesota and around the country there are about twice as many people
looking for jobs as are jobs available. This economy is flat and,
having turned downward, cuts across a broad section of population, and
this does include college graduates.
As the Presiding Officer knows, given his work with the Joint
Economic Committee, chairing that committee, it is also true that many
of the people who are out of work right now actually come from skilled
professions, skilled work, middle-income jobs.
I think this administration is sleepwalking through history. We ought
to be paying more attention to the economy. We need to get this economy
going again. We need to start putting people first again. We need to
start investing in people. All of that is true, but at the least what
we ought to do is what we did over and over in the early 1990s, which
was to pass this legislation I have introduced, which is very simple
and straightforward. It will extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks.
We ought to do that. We have done it before. It is the right thing to
do. We can help a lot of people, and, in addition--I have said it
before--it also provides some economic stimulus because, believe me,
whether it is the 9,000 Oklahoma workers who have run out of the
benefits we extended in March or whether it is the 20,000 people in
Minnesota, people will buy. Right now, they cannot meet their needs
month by month.
This is a matter of compassion, of doing what is right. Frankly--I
will say it one more time, and then I will propound my unanimous
consent request--it is absolutely unforgivable that this is being
blocked over and over when this is exactly what we did in the early
1990s.
Before my colleague from Oklahoma came to the Chamber, I said I keep
hearing about 26 weeks. This is what we did before. In March, we gave
13 weeks of additional benefits, and they have run out, and now we are
talking about an additional 13 weeks. We have always helped people. We
have always provided this help to people. We have always moved forward
with this kind of legislation.
This is now the sixth time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No.
619, S. 3009, a bill to provide economic security for America's
workers; that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table. This is the sixth time we have
propounded this request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. REID. Regular order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came back today from Minnesota. There
is a lot of work to be done. At the minimum, we ought to extend
unemployment benefits. We have 20,000 people in Minnesota who have run
out of unemployment benefits. It is going to be 50,000 in February. We
have 900,000 people in the country, 9,000 in Oklahoma. We are going to
have 2 million men and women in the country who will run out of
benefits by February of next year. We have two times as many people
looking for jobs as jobs available.
As my colleague from Nevada said, we have college graduates who
cannot find work. We have people who were in middle-income jobs,
professional jobs, highly trained, looking for work. They cannot find
jobs. At the very minimum, should we not extend unemployment benefits?
This is exactly what we did in the early 1990s. We extended an
additional 13 weeks of benefits in March of this year, and now people
have exhausted their benefits. We are trying to extend an additional 13
weeks of unemployment compensation, 20 weeks in States with high levels
of unemployment.
This is exactly the same--I want everybody in the country to know
this--this is exactly the same legislation we passed with an
overwhelming vote in the early 1990s. Why is this being blocked? Why do
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, every time I come out
here or come out here with other Senators, say: We need more time to
read it? My gosh, they have had plenty of time to read it. We need more
time to negotiate. Have we not been involved in negotiation? This is
nothing but stall, stall, stall, block, block, block, put up
roadblocks, put up roadblocks, put up roadblocks.
What is so tragic about this situation is it is people's lives.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will my friend answer a question without
losing his right to the floor?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.
Mr. REID. I do not know if the Senator from Minnesota had an
opportunity to hear me earlier today. The Senator was in the Chamber
but was communicating with his staff. The Defense authorization bill is
in conference. There are about $400 billion in programs in that
legislation that affect the military men and women in this country.
There is only one provision holding up the conference committee from
reporting that bill out, and that is what is called concurrent
receipts.
Can the Senator from Minnesota find any justification that a person,
who has a disability from the U.S. military and is retired from the
military, should not be able to draw both benefits? Is there a reason
the Senator can come up with that they should not be able to draw both
benefits?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Nevada I will talk about
this in the same way I talked about the State unemployment benefits. I
was proud to be an original cosponsor.
When I was home over this last week, veterans were talking to me
about the concurrent receipt, and they were saying they served their
country and should get a disability payment when they served our
country. And then dollar for dollar it is subtracted from their
retirement pay? And they cannot believe there are Members of Congress,
be it House or Senate, and the administration, who are trying to block
this, keep it out of the Defense appropriations bill; nor can anybody
in Minnesota believe there are Senators--and I gather it is the White
House as well--who want to block the extension of unemployment
benefits. It is the same mentality. It is like they do not want to
count people. We are supposed to be helping people. Our work is
supposed to be connected to people's lives.
I say to the Senator from Nevada, the Senators and Representatives
who are trying to hold up concurrent receipt--and the White House, I
gather, is threatening a veto--they better watch themselves because the
veterans community is not going to accept this. The veterans community
is going to say, in all due respect, this is no way to say thank you.
It is no way to say thank you to those who have served our country. It
is no way to say thank you to tell them that they cannot get a
disability payment without having that money taken out of their
retirement pay.
This is a huge issue in the veterans community, and if my colleague
does not mind, I am going to speak a little while longer about this
because I do not know what has happened. We are nearing the end of the
session. There are all these elections, but these two issues we are now
talking about--I want to join the two of them--should not have very
much to do with politics. They really should not. We have always
extended unemployment benefits to people who are flat on their backs
through no fault of their own. That is exactly the same thing that is
in my legislation that is being blocked over and again on the other
side.
What are people who cannot find jobs, who are out of work, who are
struggling to put food on the table supposed to do?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. In one second. What are they supposed to do, wait
around for Senators and the White House to continue to play this game
of blocking? What is the problem? And what are veterans supposed to do?
How are veterans supposed to feel when
[[Page S10486]]
they hear the White House is threatening a veto because concurrent
receipt is in?
Then the argument is, well, we cannot afford it, or this will cost
more money. Tell that to people who served our country. Tell them we
cannot afford to live up to our commitment to them. Tell them we do not
really believe they have made a valid claim; that it is wrong to take
away from retirement pay just because we are giving people a disability
payment, a disability payment coming from a disability while serving
our country. What in the world is going on? What has happened to our
humanity? Why are Senators blocking these initiatives?
I have the floor, but I am pleased to yield for a question.
Mr. REID. Does the Senator also acknowledge that these unemployment
benefits help more than the unemployed in that this generates money
into the economy, helps small businesses, people can buy gasoline they
could not afford otherwise, they might be able to buy some additional
groceries? Would the Senator acknowledge that part of the reason
extended unemployment benefits were originally passed was to help the
economy?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for his question because he is
trying to help me. I view it first as an issue of compassion. Call me a
softy, but honest to God, when people have run out of unemployment
benefits and they are out of work through no fault of their own, it
would seem to me we could provide a helping hand.
My colleague from Nevada is absolutely right. There is not an
economist in the Nation who would not make the argument that this is
also economic stimulus, as opposed to these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax
cuts with 40 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent, and
proposals on the part of my Republican colleagues to eliminate the
alternative minimum tax so big corporations do not have to pay
anything. This is real economic stimulus because the families in
Minnesota that would get the additional benefits, much less in
Oklahoma, Nevada, and Rhode Island, will consume. They have to consume
because right now they cannot make ends meet month by month. They will
buy food. They will go out and buy a washing machine if it is broken
down because they need it. They will consume. Therefore, it is a win/
win.
What puzzles me is that in the early 1990s, five times we passed
almost the identical legislation.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield if I could make one final
point, and that is it is amazing the disconnect between what is going
on with this effort to block the extension of unemployment benefits and
also with this effort to block concurrent receipt and live up to our
contract for veterans. Senator Reid has taken the lead. I feel as
strongly about concurrent receipt as I do about unemployment benefits.
It has been a labor of love for me working with veterans.
There is a disconnect between what is going on, blocking this help
for people, blocking living up to our commitment to veterans, blocking
getting unemployment benefits to families that have run out and what
people in Minnesota are saying because what people in Minnesota and the
country are saying is focus on the economy. How about unemployment
benefits? How about investing in job training and education for people
who are working and now trying to look for other jobs or work their way
up to better jobs? How about raising the minimum wage? How about making
sure that as opposed to a Harvey Pitt, there is somebody at SEC we can
count on so when there is an oversight board they are really going to
be a watchdog so us little investors can finally count on investing in
companies and know that they have not cooked their books?
How about doing away with these egregious rip-offs where companies go
to Bermuda, renounce their citizenship and do not pay their taxes? How
about not telling big corporations they do not have to pay anything?
How about more tax credits for higher education? How about refundable
tax credits for tuition? How about applying tax credits to other costs
students have like books and other living expenses? How about investing
in people? How about helping us? How about thinking about the economy?
Every single time we come to the floor, we are not able to get this
done.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to do so.
Mr. NICKLES. I almost forgot the question, but I think it is coming
back to me now. I am almost amused, but not quite, on the bill that the
Senator is trying to pass by unanimous consent. Correct me if I am
wrong, but did it go through the Finance Committee? Has it been
reported out of any committee?
Mr. WELLSTONE. We have been down this road--let me answer the
question. I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, in the last 2 weeks we
have had this conversation six or seven times. Every time, I say no,
and then my colleague says he has not had time to read it, and I say it
is seven pages and I know the Senator is a quick reader. That is one
page a day. Then my colleague says, let's us work together. We are
waiting, and so far the only thing I have seen from the Senator is
obstruction. That is my answer.
Mr. NICKLES. I admonish my colleague--that is a strong word--I inform
my colleague that a person could exhaust their benefits, find a job and
still would be counted as being unemployed.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry?
Mr. NICKLES. The current law is a 13-week Federal program, which is
what we have done most of the time. The Senator has gone back to 1990.
At one time there was a 26-week extension.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Minnesota has
expired.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 4 additional
minutes.
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I hesitate to interfere with
my colleagues from Oklahoma and Minnesota who are engaged in a very
important discussion.
Mr. NICKLES. We will be done in 4 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to revise your unanimous consent
request to provide an additional 4 minutes for Senator Bond and myself
to talk about the election. I know that is not as compelling to some,
but we think it is very important, and we want to say some things about
it before the vote. After the 4 minutes is up, I will object to an
extension of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Just to inform my colleague from Minnesota, that current
law is a 26-week State program and a 13-week Federal program, with some
high unemployment States getting an additional 13 weeks. You are trying
to modify the original 13 weeks and make it 26 weeks. That is very
expensive.
Just to inform my colleague, if you did not try to change the
trigger, or use the adjusted insured unemployment rate which costs a
lot of money, and just looked at a clean, straight extension which
would cost about $7 billion instead of $17.1 billion, the probability
of success would go up dramatically. I mention that. To draft a bill,
put it directly on the calendar, and say we expect you to pass it
without any modification, is not going to happen.
I wanted to make that point. I thank my colleague from Connecticut.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from
Oklahoma in a sincere and emphatic way, he knows a straight extension
is not enough. We need an additional 13 weeks. That is the whole point.
It is not a straight extension. It is adding 13 weeks for people who
have run out of unemployment benefits, 900,000 men and women in the
country. The trigger is the exact same trigger we used in the early
1990s. This is $10.6 billion over 10 years, all of which is in the
trust fund to provide the help to people who have run out of benefits.
My colleague has blocked the very legislation we passed in the 1990s
to help people. For the people in Minnesota, and the people in the
country, the straight extension is not what this is about. This is an
additional 13 weeks. That is what we did in the early 1990s, many times
over, and what we should do today. It is simply wrong, after almost 2
weeks, that my colleague has been blocking this over and over and over
again.
[[Page S10487]]
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES. I know the Senator wants to be factually correct. I
believe the trigger is different from the one in the early 1990s. The
fact is, if you want to help people, consider a straight extension of
the program we have in current law.
I yield the floor.
____________________