[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.

                          ____________________