Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I are going to be involved in a colloquy for a couple of minutes as we await another amendment. It pertains to the minimum wage. I will have a unanimous consent request that I will propound in a moment. As we are debating new trade practices, we must not forget important protections for America's workers. Many of these protections are addressed through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, but for the last 60 years there has been another important protection for workers, and that is the minimum wage. It has now been over 6 years since Congress voted to increase the minimum wage. In that time, the cost of living has increased 12 percent while the real value of the minimum wage has steadily declined. In fact, by 2003, all of the gain achieved through the last increase will have been wiped out. Today, minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year earn only $10,700--more than $4,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. In the last 6 years, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has deteriorated to near record low levels. Teacher's aides and health care workers are among the hard-working Americans who are unable to make ends meet on a $5.15 per hour wage. In fact, the current minimum wage does not provide enough income to allow full-time workers to afford adequate housing in any area of the country. In my State of South Dakota, the minimum wage is hardly enough for a family to make ends meet. According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, a minimum wage earner can afford a monthly rent of no more than $268. In South Dakota, a worker earning the minimum wage must work 79 hours a week in order to afford a typical two-bedroom apartment. In fact, estimates show that for a worker to be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment in South Dakota, they would have to earn $10.12--nearly 200 percent of the present minimum wage. That is why we need to pass Senator Kennedy's new minimum wage legislation. It would provide a $1.50 increase over the next 2 years. This is the least we can do, and it is long overdue. By increasing the minimum wage by $1.50, working families will receive an additional $3,000 per year in income. While this increase would not be enough to lift the family of three above the poverty line, it would provide the resources to buy over 15 months of groceries, 8 months of rent, 7 months of utilities, or tuition at a two-year community college. The reality is that American workers are working harder and harder for less and less. It is time for Congress to address the needs of America's working families. It is time to act and raise the minimum wage.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is not as well known as I wish it were. But how ironic it would be if in the same Congress that passed tax breaks for those at the very top--tax breaks worth $50,000 a year to those in the top 1 percent--we could not do something to address the needs of those at the lowest end of the income scale. I certainly appreciate the graphic depiction of the trend of the minimum wage which the Senator from Massachusetts has outlined. That is the whole idea behind this legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the answer to that would be emphatically yes, especially given the stated desire of Members of Congress who have passed welfare reform. The whole idea behind welfare reform was to make work pay, to make work more palatable than welfare. But it is hard for me to understand how a head of household can see how work pays when they are working for the minimum wage, 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week and earning only $10,700 a year. That is why we have people in South Dakota--and I am sure in Massachusetts--working two and three jobs. That is why we are concerned about the pressures on families these days. It is hard to raise children, and it is hard to address all of the other familial responsibilities if you are working two and three jobs a week in an effort to rise above that poverty line that the Senator's chart illustrates.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask, therefore, unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, may turn to the consideration of S. 2538, the minimum wage increase bill; that the Senate proceed to its consideration no later than the close of business, June 24; and that it be considered under the following time limitation: That there be one amendment for each leader, or their designee, dealing with minimum wage/taxes; that no other amendments or motions be in order, except possible motions to waive the Budget Act; and that no points of order be waived by this agreement; that upon the disposition of these amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate vote on final passage of the bill, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. Not only is it modest but it is overdue. As I noted in my opening comments, it has been 6 years since we passed an increase in the minimum wage. During that time, as the Senator's chart illustrates, the minimum wage has dramatically declined. The number of hours people have to work goes up and the real value of the money they receive goes down. More and more people are faced with the prospect of taking two and three jobs in order to climb above that poverty line, at the very time, ironically, when we say that we want work to pay to ensure that they do not go back to welfare. So I compliment the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership in this effort and, again, reiterate that the moderate increase that he is proposing is one that is in keeping with past precedent here in the Congress; and it certainly recognizes the need to do something this year.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will be conducting a vote on cloture at 11:30. Prior to the time we have that vote, I want to make some final comments about what I consider to be the importance of bringing debate on the bill to a close and making sure that we have a good vote on cloture this morning. We opened the debate with a recognition of how critical it is in this country, with this economy, that we recognize especially the importance of our globalized markets and the need to be competitive in them. Under the strong leadership of Senator Baucus and with help from Senator Grassley, we put together a historic package of trade legislation that dealt first with the Andean Trade Preference Act, an act that has already proven itself to be invaluable to not only those countries in South America that have benefited directly from increased trade with the United States, but this country as well--a recognition that this trade partnership ought to be extended, a recognition that it is not only an economic partnership but a strong political one, and that if we can continue to provide political communication and coordination in a way that allows us better economic return, we are going to strengthen those countries politically as well as economically. That is what ATPA does. It is an opportunity for us to reaffirm our recognition of a partnership of South American countries and our confidence that economic trade is good for both. Secondly, we added legislation to this package that, for the first time, addresses meaningful assistance to those workers who are displaced as a result of trade. My view has always been that there are far more winners than losers in expanding our trade around the world. But we also recognize that there are some losers and some who, for whatever reason, may have been dislocated. When those occasions occur, I think our country owes those workers a future, owes those workers some safety net to ensure that their health needs and, hopefully, their short-term unemployment needs are addressed. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act that we have put into this package addresses that need. It does so very effectively. For the first time, trade adjustment assistance will help those who have lost their jobs get coverage for health care under COBRA at 70 percent of the cost of the program itself. Seventy percent is an unprecedented statement about our commitment to those workers who have lost something as a result of changes in the environment that have been created as a result of job loss because of globalized market development. We also provide new wage insurance legislation that helps older workers who may just be on the verge of retirement but not quite there. They are too old, perhaps, to get training for job relocation. They may be much closer to retirement than to the possibility of a better job through new training and the acquisition of new training skills. So this wage insurance is something the Heritage Foundation supports, something that trade study groups and think tanks have supported for many years, something that the U.S. Trade Representative also signed onto as an effective tool for assisting those who are also adversely affected. So there is no doubt, when you look to the first two components, the opportunity for us to address workers who are adversely affected and the opportunity for us to extend the trading partnership with South America, I have no doubt that on that basis alone we have all the reasons we need to pass this legislation. Finally, let me say the bill itself--the base bill--the TPA, trade promotion authority, provides us with yet another reason we should be supporting cloture this morning. We not only started with a good package; in my view, we improved upon it. We added the Dayton-Craig amendment on trade law that gives Congress an additional role, an opportunity for us to enhance the role as new trade agreements are presented. We added the Dorgan amendment on transparency for the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the Kennedy amendment which helps us fight the AIDS epidemic all over the world. There were other efforts I supported that didn't become part of the bill, such as the Rockefeller amendment on steelworkers. I must say that overall we have debated more than a dozen amendments, many of them very consequential. We have adopted eight of them. I believe the Senate has had the opportunity to work its will. There comes a time when the debate has run its course and we are called upon to bring that debate to a close and move on to final passage and other issues. I remind my colleagues that even after cloture we will have 30 hours of debate. Senator Baucus just noted to me that there are a number of amendments still pending that will be debated and voted upon prior to the time we come to final passage of the bill. But this is our opportunity to say as strongly and unequivocally as we can that, first, we recognize the extraordinary importance of U.S. participation in global markets, and we are going to give this President--and any President--the tools with which to ensure that we have the framework in place to do so effectively. Secondly, we recognize particularly the important partnership we have created with Latin America. We want to extend that partnership not only for economic, but political and diplomatic reasons as well. Finally, we recognize there are those who are ultimately going to be adversely affected. And while they may be in the distinct minority of all workers affected and the greater realm of good created in this legislation, we cannot ignore them. We are going to provide them health benefits, wage insurance, and the kind of safety net that they deserve when this kind of circumstance befalls them. This is a good package. This warrants our support. I hope my colleagues will join in a bipartisan effort to support cloture this morning in an effort to move to the final phase of consideration of this legislation prior to the vote on final passage. I urge my colleagues to support cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield on another question?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much what the Senator from Illinois said. Last weekend I spoke in South Dakota at the last graduation of a high school at Hecla in my State. Hecla is closing its doors. They will no longer have a high school in that small town. What I find is that what is happening in Hecla is happening in places all over my State and in the country. Budgets are collapsing at the local level. They are not able to fund the priorities because the property tax base is shrinking. Every school administrator and every school district president I have talked to says they no longer have the budget they had just a couple of years ago. The situation is exacerbated by the tremendous loss of revenue at the local level. On top of that, we now see a loss of revenue at the Federal level. Schools are getting caught in the squeeze. There is less money at the local level to hire teachers, to do what they have to do to improve the schools, and to ensure they have the proper classroom size at the very time of a double whammy by the administration which comes out with a budget that is sorely lacking in commitment of resources needed to meet the issues and challenges these schools are facing. We are going to continue to see schools close, schools downsize, classes get larger, and students subjected to teachers who in some cases may not be qualified, in large measure because funding is not there. We cannot have reform that we hear this administration wants without having resources. I appreciate very much the Senator from Massachusetts calling attention to that fact. But I ask: Does the Senator from Massachusetts have any similar situations he has experienced? Are schools not having that problem now not only in rural areas but in urban areas as well?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, in order to accommodate the time constraints, I will use my leader time to make some remarks with regard to this. I will begin by complimenting and thanking my colleagues for the extraordinary job they have done. I will say for the record--and I want all to know--that I have never seen a more passionate or a more determined effort on the part of my colleagues on any issue than I have by my colleagues on this one. Senator Wellstone, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Mikulski in caucus, in leadership, in private meetings, and in every conceivable forum have made this an issue that we now clearly understand. I am grateful to them for enlightening us, for sensitizing us, and for making this the kind of cause it deserves to be, not only within our caucus but within the Senate and within the Congress itself. Everyone should know that were it not for their passionate defense, we would not be here this morning. Second, I don't know if there is a more important issue as it relates to the well-being of workers who are vulnerable. We can talk about wages, we can talk about all the other issues involving displacement and the effects of trade, but when you talk about health, you are talking about the well-being of individuals who have no other choice but to seek remedy as these Senators seek it in this amendment. This is a powerful message. We have people out there who have no access to health care, through no fault of their own, and who have no opportunity to avail themselves of any health option, in large measure because they have fallen victims in many cases to the trade challenges, the trade problems, and the trade issues that are the very basis for the debate we have had on trade throughout the last several weeks. I do not know how you look at those people in the eye and say: Look, I understand you have a problem. I understand you can't go to a doctor. I understand your wife is sick and you can't go to a hospital. I understand you can't go to an emergency room. I understand the humiliation and all of the pain you must suffer and all of the anxiety. But I am not going to support their amendment. Go talk to somebody else, tell them about your problem, because I am not going to deal with it. If we turn down this amendment, that is the message we are sending to every one of those people who are out of work and who have no health insurance. That is the message: We don't care. We shouldn't be doing that. That is why this amendment is so critical. We should be saying: Look, we understand. For those of us who embrace trade legislation, it is all the more imperative that we do it. There are a lot of my colleagues who, for understandable reasons, are saying: Look, I don't want to see trade promotion authority because all it does is displace workers, all it does is cause pain. There are those of us who say: Well, there is a lot to be said about that, but the overall good of the country depends on trade promotion authority. But if we say this, we also ought to say that when those people are displaced, they are going to get help. When they are displaced, they are going to get the kind of care they need. When they are displaced, they can see a doctor or go to a hospital. Then, by God, we have to find a way to make that happen, or this country doesn't deserve to pass any trade legislation. Let us deal with the victims as well as the prize winners here. Let us understand that. Let us not look at the big numbers, let us look at the faces of the human beings affected by this. That is what this amendment does. This is an important vote. I hope everybody pays very careful attention to the consequences of their vote this morning. Some say this is an easy ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. Maybe that is right. Maybe that is right. But if it is an easy no, I daresay--and I will challenge my colleagues who haven't thought about this--they haven't given it the kind of care and consideration it deserves. At times, I wish we had a chair right in the middle of the well, right here. I would like to have a steelworker sitting right here as we vote. And I would like to have every Member walk by and say: You know I am going to look you in the eye, and then I am going to vote no. I think if we forced someone to have a chair down here with a steelworker and his family sitting here, the vote would be 100 to zero. But they are out there somewhere. Nobody has to look at faces, or names, or victims. Let us understand those families are right outside these doors. Those families are glued to their televisions this morning, hoping and praying that we can do something about this. Hoping. Let's give them cause for hope. Let's give them the ability to understand that we hear them, that we care about them, and that we want to make a difference in their lives. Madam President, America's steelworkers have literally built this nation--from the skyscrapers that define us, to the military that defend us. But today, those steelworkers who have defined and defended us need our help. The last few years have been among the worst in history for the American steel industry. In 1997, the Asian financial crisis disrupted global steel trade and diverted much of the world's excess steel capacity to the U.S. market. That started a decline that has only gotten worse. In just the last 2 years, 31 steel companies have filed for bankruptcy. Since January of 2000, more than 50 steelmaking or related plants have shut down or been idled. And steel prices are now at their lowest levels in 20 years. This crisis has been devastating for steelworkers, their families, and their communities. Over 43,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs, and another 600,000 retirees and their surviving spouses are in danger of losing their health care benefits because the companies that once employed them are now facing bankruptcy. This amendment provides 1 year of subsidized health benefits for those retired steelworkers now in danger of losing them. Last month, many of our Republican colleagues in the Senate said they supported a much more generous assumption of legacy costs as part of an effort to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling. I said to them, at the time, if you are serious about helping steelworkers, you will have a chance to do it. This is your chance. This is a modest, stopgap measure--far more modest than what Republicans claimed last month they would support. It covers 70 percent of retired steelworkers' health care costs for just 1 year. That is all it does. It does not cost the taxpayers a penny. It does not solve the larger issue of so-called legacy costs. It does not create a new entitlement. There is a lot this amendment does not do. But what it does do, is show that we understand how much these workers are suffering. We understand that after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve better than uncertainty. No one can afford to be without health insurance, but that is particularly true for people who have spend a lifetime in jobs that demand hard, physical labor. For these people, sometimes health insurance means the difference between self- sufficiency and poverty. I know that the administration has come out against health insurance for steel retirees. I hope the administration will reconsider. Last year, we agreed we would leave no child behind. This year, let's make sure we leave no worker behind as America moves into the new, globalized economy. This amendment is cost-effective, it helps people, it is compassionate. I can see no reason to oppose this amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if a point of order lies against the Allen amendment, the motion to table be withdrawn, and the Senate vote at 2:15 on the Allen motion to waive the Budget Act with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I come to the floor to express my support for H.R. 3167, the Freedom Consolidation Act. Last week I received a letter from Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld expressing their support for this bill. President Bush has also requested that the Senate consider this bill before he leaves on his trip to Russia next Wednesday. I am pleased that we could accommodate his request, and I wish the President every success on the visit. This is a straightforward bill. It cites earlier legislation leading up to the last round of NATO enlargement, quotes President Bush's pro- enlargement June 15, 2001, Warsaw speech, adds Slovakia to the countries eligible to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994, and authorizes a total of $55.5 million in foreign military financing, FMF, under the Arms Export Control Act for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Most importantly, this bill reaffirms the position of the United States on NATO enlargement: that the door to NATO membership remains open, and that those countries that are prepared to meet the obligations of membership--as it relates to defense capabilities and democratic and political readiness--are welcome to join. NATO enlargement has enjoyed and continues to enjoy bipartisan support in the United States Senate. It is an issue that unites Democrats and Republicans. At a time when we and our allies are engaged in a global war on terrorism, we recognize more than ever the need for allies--and for new allies. As we face a shared and multidimensional threat, we must recognize that each new ally brings substantial political, economic and military contributions to the effort in Afghanistan and around the world. The terrorist attacks of September 11 underscore the need to consolidate the peace on the European continent so that North America and Europe, from, as the President has said, the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, can focus their energies on the new threats of the 21st century. This is an important message for the President to take on his trip. But another part of the President's trip is also about closing a chapter from the 20th century. The President announced Monday morning that he and President Putin will sign a new treaty to deal with the nuclear weapons left from the cold war. The treaty limits the United States and Russia to no more than 1,700- 2,200 deployed weapons by 2012. Any time we can get an agreement to reduce the number of nuclear weapons deployed in the world, that is a positive step, and I commend the President for taking it. But there are a still a series of questions about that treaty that need to be answered. Does it require destruction of any existing nuclear weapons? Does it include provisions to secure Russian stockpiles? Does it spell out a transparent timetable for when each side must reduce the number of deployed weapons to the agreed upon level? Does it include any new verification provisions? And lastly, does it address the issue of tactical nuclear weapons? I hope the President will use this historic trip to address these questions, which go to the heart of one of the principal security threats the United States faces today--the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the potential for those weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists. So let's send the President off on this important trip with the important message contained in H.R. 3167--that we want to continue to remake and improve our relations with the whole of Europe, including Russia. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3167, and ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of a letter, dated March 20, that Senator Lott and I sent to the Romanian Prime Minister, and a letter to me from President Bush, dated April 11, on the same.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, all week long the average length of time it has taken to have a vote has exceeded 30 minutes. That is just too long. There is no way we are going to continue to accomplish as much as we need to accomplish before the end of next week if we have to be spending 30 and 40 minutes on a vote. We are going to have to start cutting off this time more aggressively. I want to put all colleagues on notice that we are not going to tolerate the extent to which our good will is violated as these amendments are voted upon. Please come over and vote within the 15 or 20 minutes allotted for the vote. Extending it twice as long is just unacceptable and a real disservice to all our colleagues who are waiting to do their work. Madam President, as I said, we have all day today and all day on Monday for Senators to offer amendments. I know Senator Dorgan is waiting to offer an amendment. There will be other Senators who will come to the floor. The authors of the steel amendment have kindly accepted our suggestion to set aside their amendment in order to accommodate other Senators who wish to have their amendments offered. I think it is very important that we use these days for full consideration of other amendments. It is my intention at this point to file cloture on the bill on Monday in order to have a cloture vote on Wednesday. So amendments will have to be disposed of prior to Wednesday. It is my expectation that we will be taking up a supplemental appropriations bill, in consultation of course with Senator Byrd, before the end of next week. There is no way we can do that unless we bring our debate on this bill to a successful close. So we have a lot of work to do next week. We want to finish the bill. We want to finish the supplemental bill. We may take up other issues as well, including some reference to the budget. So it is necessary that we use the days between now and then to the maximum degree possible. I urge Senators to come over and have their amendments considered. Senator Reid will be here, and other members of the leadership, but primarily Senator Reid, who has offered to offer the amendments on behalf of Senators who may have travel schedules that will not accommodate their offering of amendments. So there is no reason these amendments cannot be offered. Senator Reid will be here to offer them or Senators can come and offer them themselves. But all day today and all day Monday we are open for business and we are determined to use these days to the maximum degree possible. I thank my colleagues for what I think has been a very productive week on this bill. Their cooperation has been very catalytic in bringing about the final days of debate on the bill--with the one exception that we are spending too much time on the votes themselves. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, may turn to the consideration of S. 625, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, and that it be considered under the following limitations: There be 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; that each leader or their designee be permitted to offer two relevant first- degree amendments; that there be a time limitation of 1 hour for debate on each first-degree amendment; that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to a failed motion to table; that if a second-degree amendment is offered, it be relevant to the first-degree and be limited to 30 minutes for debate; that upon the disposition of the amendments and the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is not only a motion to proceed but it would be the circumstances under which we would consider the bill itself.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We have addressed this legislation in the past. As I will make known for the record, this is identical legislation to what was passed before. It is legislation we will take up either under a unanimous consent agreement or through a motion to proceed at some point in the not too distant future. My hope was we could work out arrangements whereby we could expedite the consideration of the legislation. As the Senator has accurately noted, we have addressed this successfully in the past and it is critical that we have an opportunity once again to ensure that this time the legislation does not die in conference. That is what happened. The amendment was dropped in the conference committee, even though the Senate had passed on a bipartisan basis this bill as an amendment to the Defense authorization legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has asked some very good questions. I share his frustration and his utter dismay that a bill of this importance would have difficulty passing the Senate right now. How can anyone be opposed to a bill that is already supported by 500 organizations? How can anyone be opposed to a bill that has already passed on an overwhelming basis--in one case, unanimously? How can anyone be opposed to a bill that addresses the fact that almost every day at least three hate crimes on the average are committed? How can anyone be opposed to a bill with the title Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act? For the life of me, I don't understand. At the end of the day, whatever day it is, this legislation will pass. It will pass the easy way or the hard way, but it will pass. We will not adjourn without having passed this legislation. It is that critical. The time has come and gone for delay, for explanation, for excuse, for anything else. There is no reason why this legislation should not pass by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts and his extraordinary leadership in this issue. I join in acknowledging the importance of this legislation and asking our colleagues to join in ensuring its passage.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator again for his presence on the floor and his strong statement. I add a couple of additional thoughts. In 1996, two women were found murdered, their hands bound, their throats cut, just off the Appalachian trail in Shenandoah National Park. Their deaths were profound tragedies for those families and their loved ones. They also sparked a wave of fear among women and the gay community, that what happened to those two hikers could just as easily happen to them. That response, that fear, is exactly what makes hate crimes different from all other crimes. They target individuals, but they intimidate and dehumanize entire groups of people. Last month, Attorney General Ashcroft announced that the defendant in this case will be tried using the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act. This is the first time a Federal murder prosecution will use this provision of the law. At his press conference announcing the indictments, Attorney General Ashcroft said: Criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in America--our belief in equality and freedom. Attorney General Ashcroft is absolutely right. Americans know that hate crimes injure the victim, the community, and the entire Nation. No one should be attacked simply because of his or her race, religion, gender, physical disabilities, or sexual orientation. However, it is ironic to hear the Attorney General say that the Department of Justice will aggressively investigate, prosecute, and punish criminal acts of violence motivated by hate and intolerance. It is ironic because the only reason the Attorney General is able to pursue this case in this manner is because the two women were on Federal property when the crime was committed. Had this tragedy occurred outside the National Park, it would have been up to the State and local authorities, and the sentencing enhancement that the Justice Department is seeking would not have even been a possibility. As Senator Kennedy has said, until we pass the hate crimes legislation pending before Congress, the promise to aggressively prosecute hate crimes is an empty promise. For several years now we have attempted to pass the hate crimes legislation that he and others have introduced. I included it as part of our leadership bills introduced at the beginning of this Congress because I believe it is much more than a Democratic priority. It ought to be a national priority. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would assist State and local authorities when a hate crime such as the Shenandoah murders occurs within their jurisdiction. The bill would expand current Federal protections against hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin. It would amend the criminal code to cover hate crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability. It would authorize grants for State and local programs designed to combat and prevent hate crimes, and help the Federal Government to assist State and local law enforcement officials investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. I might say, Mr. President, this is directed just as much at those who are the perpetrators of hate for reasons of religion. There is a rising and disconcerting trend in anti-Semitism in this country that also ought to be addressed. Hate crimes are committed in the name of anti-Semitism just as they are committed with other motivations. Those who profess to be concerned about anti-Semitism in this country ought to be concerned about the passage of this legislation. That also is why I am troubled by those who now choose, for whatever reason, to oppose this unanimous consent request and oppose moving this legislation forward. In the fall of 2000 this same legislation passed the Senate as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, as we noted just a minute ago. There is no more need to delay. If we could pass it before, we can pass it again. We know the need is clear, the support is there. It is time to finish the job we started 2 years ago. We need to pass the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act and pass it quickly.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a couple of unanimous consent requests having to do with the consideration of future legislative items, and I make these requests now. I ask unanimous consent that the Majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, may turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 210, S. 1140, a bill to provide for greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to motor vehicle franchise contracts; that it be considered under the following limitation: Two hours for debate on the bill equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; one relevant amendment for each leader or their designee; that there be 1 hour of debate on each amendment equally divided in the usual form; that no other amendments be in order; and that upon the disposition of the amendments and the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on final passage, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am concerned that there has been a Republican objecting to considering the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act, S. 1140. Senator Lott and I are cosponsors of this bill to provide basic fairness to many small businesses in Mississippi and South Dakota, and thousands more across the country. This legislation enjoys exceptional bipartisan support. In fact, more than 60 Senators have cosponsored the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act, including, I might add, the chairman and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee. It enjoys such exceptional bipartisan support because it restores fundamental fairness to the automobile franchising process. Today, large automobile manufacturers are forcing small business automobile dealers to sign away their legal rights as a condition of entering into a franchise agreement. These franchise contracts are presented by the automobile manufacturers as a ``take it or leave it'' proposition, without any room for good faith negotiations. It is wrong for one party to take advantage of its raw negotiating power to limit the legal rights of another party. This bipartisan bill amends the Federal Arbitration Act to right this wrong by simply reserving voluntary arbitration to resolve disputes between the dealers and manufacturers. Senator Johnson and I have heard from many automobile dealers in South Dakota who agree with us that this is an important piece of legislation. They have had enough of being forced into accepting mandatory binding arbitration clauses as part of their franchise contracts. They are just small business owners trying to keep their legal rights and make a living. South Dakota automobile dealers tell me they just want to be treated fairly, and they should be treated fairly. I hope the minority will soon allow the Senate to consider the bipartisan act. This matter is a matter of basic fairness for thousands of small business owners across the country. The time has come for the majority of the Senate to be heard on this important issue. Mr. President, I see no one who is seeking recognition, so I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program dedicates a very small piece of what we gained from trade to help those people who lose from trade, get back on their feet, and that is really what this amendment does. The current TAA program helps some people but does not address some of the key problems people face; it leaves out too many other people altogether. We fix some of these flaws. When a plant shuts down or moves overseas, workers lose their livelihoods and families face the uncertainty of not knowing how they are going to pay for food or a mortgage, or take their child to the doctor. This bipartisan agreement will provide these workers with the opportunity to go back to community college to learn some new skills. They will receive unemployment insurance and subsidized health care to help them get through the difficult times and help them get a new job. To a 35-year-old worker facing a difficult circumstance of a lost job, this sounds like a potential lifeline. But for a 53-year-old closer to retirement age, and less likely to be able to transition into a new job or field, those benefits are largely an empty promise. And we know it. That is why we have worked so hard to keep the wage insurance provision in the bipartisan package we negotiated with Senators Grassley, Lott, Gramm, and the White House. This provision was part of our agreement, and it must be retained. Wage insurance is a pilot program--that is all it is--to test a very powerful idea. It says to older workers, if you take a lower paying job than the one you lost, some of the money that you would have received in unemployment insurance will go to offset a portion of the wage loss you will suffer. By helping offset the loss of taking a lower paying job, wage insurance discourages dependency and encourages work. Wage insurance is not just compassionate policy, it is smart policy. By getting people back into the workforce sooner, wage insurance will reduce unemployment rolls and the overall cost to Government. In reality, the provision will cost nothing more than what the Government would have been paying in unemployment insurance because people will have to give up their unemployment benefits to get the wage insurance. This provision is prowork and it enjoys broad intellectual support on the left and on the right. In 1998, partly because of the unintended effects of trade, Congress established the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission. Among the key members of the Commission were President Bush's Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; and George Becker, former President of the Steelworkers. This group doesn't agree on much. But wage insurance was one clear area of agreement. Here is what they had to say--a bipartisan commission: We recommend that Congress consider new ways to address the broader cost of job displacement. Such consideration should include assessing ways of filling the earnings gaps created when new jobs initially pay less than previous jobs. As discussed, wage insurance is one such option. It has the advantage of encouraging displaced workers to accept new jobs as quickly as possible. Here is another voice: It would be a great tragedy were we to stop the wheels of progress because of an incapacity to assist victims of progress. Our efforts should be directed at job skills enhancement and retraining . . . and, if necessary, selected income maintenance programs for those over a certain age, where retraining is problematic. That is not a Democratic Senator speaking. That is Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. In case my colleagues missed the translation, ``income maintenance programs for those of a certain age'' is wage insurance. Alan Greenspan is talking about wage insurance. Wage insurance for older workers is exactly what we are talking about this morning. Finally, from a think tank: The proposed wage insurance program would strongly encourage workers to quickly find new jobs. I will repeat that because it may resonate with some of my colleagues on the floor. The proposed wage insurance program would strongly encourage workers to quickly find new jobs. That quote comes from the Heritage Foundation, and it comes as yet another endorsement of this amendment. Older workers who lose their jobs and are struggling to find a new one have enough uncertainty to worry about. They should not also have to worry about whether they can afford to take a new job. The wage insurance provision gives workers something more than an empty promise. We already scaled this proposal back from $100 million for each of the next 5 years to $50 million for 2 years. But we cannot afford to lose it entirely. It is a central component of the bipartisan agreement we made with Senators Grassley, Lott, Gramm, and the White House. I urge my colleagues to keep this agreement intact and reject this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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