Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I want to give the rest of what time we have left to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise to address our policy in Iraq. The situation remains fluid. Administration officials are engaged in negotiations at the United Nations over what approach we ought to take with our allies to disarm the brutal and dictatorial Iraqi regime. The debate we will have in the Senate today and in the days to follow is critical because the administration seeks our authorization now for military action, including possibly unprecedented, preemptive, go-it- alone military action in Iraq, even as it seeks to garner support from our allies on a new U.N. disarmament resolution. Let me be clear: Saddam Hussein is a brutal, ruthless dictator who has repressed his own people, attacked his neighbors, and he remains an international outlaw. The world would be a much better place if he were gone and the regime in Iraq were changed. That is why the United States should unite the world against Saddam and not allow him to unite forces against us. A go-it-alone approach, allowing a ground invasion of Iraq without the support of other countries, could give Saddam exactly that chance. A preemptive, go-it-alone strategy toward Iraq is wrong. I oppose it. I support ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction through unfettered U.N. inspections which would begin as soon as possible. Only a broad coalition of nations, united to disarm Saddam, while preserving our war on terror, is likely to succeed. Our primary focus now must be on Iraq's verifiable disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. This will help maintain international support and could even eventually result in Saddam's loss of power. Of course, I would welcome this, along with most of our allies. The President has helped to direct intense new multilateral pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency weapons inspectors back in Iraq to conduct their assessment of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear programs. He clearly has felt that heat. It suggests what can be accomplished through collective action. I am not naive about this process. Much work lies ahead. But we cannot dismiss out of hand Saddam's late and reluctant commitment to comply with U.N. disarmament arrangements or the agreement struck Tuesday to begin to implement them. We should use the gathering international resolve to collectively confront this regime by building on these efforts. This debate must include all Americans because our decisions finally must have the informed consent of the American people who will be asked to bear the cost, in blood and treasure, of our decisions. When the lives of sons and daughters of average Americans could be risked and lost, their voices must be heard in the Congress before we make decisions about military action. Right now, despite a desire to support our President, I believe many Americans still have profound questions about the wisdom of relying too heavily on a preemptive go- it-alone military approach. Acting now on our own might be a sign of our power. Acting sensibly and in a measured way, in concert with our allies, with bipartisan congressional support, would be a sign of our strength. It would also be a sign of the wisdom of our Founders who lodged in the President the power to command U.S. Armed Forces, and in Congress the power to make war, ensuring a balance of powers between coequal branches of Government. Our Constitution lodges the power to weigh the causes of war and the ability to declare war in Congress precisely to ensure that the American people and those who represent them will be consulted before military action is taken. The Senate has a grave duty to insist on a full debate that examines for all Americans the full range of options before us and weighs those options, together with their risks and costs. Such a debate should be energized by the real spirit of September 11, a debate which places a priority not on unanimity but on the unity of a people determined to forcefully confront and defeat terrorism and to defend our values. I have supported internationally sanctioned coalition military action in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Serbia, and in Afghanistan. Even so, in recent weeks, I and others--including major Republican policymakers, such as former Bush National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; former Bush Secretary of State James Baker; my colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Chuck Hagel; Bush Mid-East envoy General Anthony Zinni; and other leading U.S. military leaders--have raised serious questions about the approach the administration is taking on Iraq. There have been questions raised about the nature and urgency of Iraq's threat and our response to that threat: What is the best course of action that the United States could take to address this threat? What are the economic, political, and national security consequences of a possible U.S. or allied invasion of Iraq? There have been questions raised about the consequences of our actions abroad, including its effect on the continuing war on terrorism, our ongoing efforts to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, and efforts to calm the intensifying Middle East crisis, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There have been questions raised about the consequences of our actions here at home. Of gravest concern, obviously, are the questions raised about the possible loss of life that could result from our actions. The United States could post tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and, in so doing, risk countless lives of soldiers and innocent Iraqis. There are other questions about the impact of an attack in relation to our economy. The United States could face soaring oil prices and could spend billions both on a war and a years-long effort to stabilize Iraq after an invasion. The resolution that will be before the Senate explicitly authorizes a go-it-alone approach. I believe an international approach is essential. In my view, our policy should have four key elements. First and foremost, the United States must work with our allies to deal with Iraq. We should not go it alone, or virtually alone, with a preemptive ground invasion. Most critically, acting alone could jeopardize our top national priority, the continuing war on terror. I believe it would be a mistake to vote for a resolution that authorizes a preemptive ground invasion. The intense cooperation of other nations in relation to matters that deal with intelligence sharing, security, political and economic cooperation, law enforcement, and financial surveillance, and other areas is crucial to this fight, and this is what is critical for our country to be able to wage its war effectively with our allies. Over the past year, this cooperation has been the most successful weapon against terrorist networks. That--not attacking Iraq--should be the main focus of our efforts in the war on terror. As I think about what a go-it-alone strategy would mean in terms of the consequences in South Asia and the Near East and the need for our country to have access on the ground, and cooperation of the community, and get intelligence in the war against al-Qaida and in this war against terrorism, I believe a go-it-alone approach could undercut that effort. That is why I believe our effort should be international. We have succeeded in destroying some al-Qaida forces, but many operatives have scattered. Their will to kill Americans is still strong. The United States has relied heavily on alliances with nearly 100 countries in a coalition against terror for critical intelligence to protect Americans from possible future attacks. Acting with the support of allies, including, hopefully, Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our antiterrorism effort. But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, has recently noted, a premature, go-it-alone invasion of Iraq ``would supercharge recruiting for al-Qaida.'' Second, our efforts should have a goal of disarming Saddam Hussein of all his weapons of mass destruction. Iraq agreed to destroy its weapons of mass destruction at the end of the Persian Gulf War and to verification by the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency that this had been done. According to the U.N. and the IAEA, and undisputed by the administration, inspections during the 1990s neutralized a substantial portion of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and getting inspectors back to finish the job is critical. We know he did not cooperate with all of the inspection regime. We know what needs to be done. But the fact is we had that regime, and it is important now to call on the Security Council of the U.N. to insist that those inspectors be on the ground. The goal is disarmament, unfettered access. It is an international effort, and with that Saddam Hussein must comply. Otherwise, there will be consequences, including appropriate use of force. The prompt resumption of inspections and disarmament, under an expedited timetable and with unfettered access in Iraq, is imperative. Third, weapons inspections should be enforceable. If efforts by the U.N. weapons inspectors are tried and fail, a range of potential U.N. sanctions means, including proportionate military force, should be considered. I have no doubt that this Congress would act swiftly to authorize force in such circumstances. This does not mean giving the United Nations a veto over U.S. actions. Nobody wants to do that. It simply means, as Chairman Levin has observed, that Saddam Hussein is a world problem and should be addressed in the world arena. Finally, our approach toward Iraq must be consistent with international law and the framework of collective security developed over the last 50 years or more. It should be sanctioned by the Security Council under the U.N. charter, to which we are a party and by which we are legally bound. Only a broad coalition of nations, united to disarm Saddam Hussein, while preserving our war on terror, can succeed. Our response will be far more effective if Saddam Hussein sees the whole world arrayed against him. We should act forcefully, resolutely, sensibly, with our allies--and not alone--to disarm Saddam Hussein. Authorizing the preemptive go-alone use of force right now, which is what the resolution before us calls for, in the midst of continuing efforts to enlist the world community to back a tough, new disarmament resolution on Iraq, could be a very costly mistake for our country. Madam President, quite often at the end of debates on amendments, we thank our staffs for the work they have done and appreciate their hard work. At the end of my statement today on the floor of the Senate as to why I am opposed to the resolution before us that we will be debating today and in the days to come, which is too open-ended and would provide the President with authority for preemptive military action, including a ground invasion in Iraq, I would like to thank my staff. I would like to thank my staff for never trying one time to influence me to make any other decision than what I honestly and truthfully believe is right for the State I represent, Minnesota, for my country, and for the world in which my children and my grandchildren live. To all of my staff, I thank you for believing in me. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thought maybe I could jump ahead of the Senator from New Mexico for just 2 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will follow the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I come here to the floor to announce that I have been in agreement with Senator Helms on just about every issue since he has been here-- not quite, but I will say this. I think one of the ways you judge a person is just the way you watch them treat people. I don't know if this has been said, but when I watch the way Senator Helms treats the pages here and the elevator operators and the support staff, I don't think there is anybody in the Senate who treats them with more grace and is kinder and more appreciative. In fact, I think there have been surveys that have put him at the very top. I thank him for the way in which he has treated staff. I wish to tell him, though we have not agreed on the issues, I have appreciated getting to know him. I hope it is mutual. I wish you, Senator Helms, and my wife wishes you the very best. We wish you well. Mr. President, there is going to be another time before the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, leaves when I wish to talk about him because there is much positive to say about him from the point of view of somebody who stood up for what he believes. I think it has to be part of the Record. I look forward to doing that. Senator Helms, I wish you well.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know the Senator wants to speak on this matter as well. I can do this in a very brief timespan, though I think this is a critically important issue. I thank, as always, my colleague Senator Kennedy for his leadership, along with Senator Clinton. My State of Minnesota has lost 40,000 jobs in the last 18 months. I have not seen anything like this for a long time. We have 123,000 Minnesotans who are officially unemployed, and that doesn't include people who are self-employed, people who work part time, and those people who have become discouraged workers. Right now, unemployed workers in Minnesota are looking for jobs, and they outnumber unfilled jobs by 2 to 1. This is a serious situation. Look at the reports today about the stock market and the economy. The good thing we did in the 1990s, in a bipartisan way, is that when we were in the earlier years, before President Clinton, in recession, we extended the unemployment benefits another 13 weeks. That is exactly what we are talking about here--the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. It is a bipartisan measure. It is critically important. Basically what we are saying is that we ought to at least, with this Economic Security Act, provide an additional 13 weeks of extended benefits for workers who are either running out of benefits and won't even get the 13 weeks they are due in December or those who have already run out of all of their benefits. For those States with high levels of unemployment, we are talking about another 20 weeks of unemployment benefits. Colleagues, this is compassion. This is bipartisan. The economy is not doing well, and the families we represent in our States are not doing well.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. 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, without intervening action or debate. I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I don't know whether he wants to do this. I know Senator Smith wanted to speak. If you are going to support this, I hope he can speak after--or maybe you want to let him speak a few words before. Would that be possible?

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator can follow then. 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 American workers--this is to extend it another 13 weeks, and we should do that-- that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have a copy of the bill that I would be pleased to give to the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is nothing really complicated about this. We have a lot of people out of work. The economy is not doing well. They have run out of benefits, and they need another 13 weeks.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator is correct. Although it is 13 weeks, it is 20 weeks for States with higher levels of unemployment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The same way, I say to my colleague, we did it in a bipartisan way in the early 1990s, where it was 13 weeks, and for States with higher levels of unemployment, it went to 20 weeks. We have done it before, and we can do it again right now.

Mr. WELLSTONE. CBO has not given us an estimate. I think it will be $10 billion to $13 billion. If I may say to my colleague for a moment, I appreciate his question and what he is talking about, and we will let you read it. But people are flat on their backs. In the case of States with high unemployment, it would be 20 weeks. We have done it before. The CBO estimate--I have given you what I believe it is going to be. I am not neutral. We need to do this. We need to take this action.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I may say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I appreciate what I heard and his willingness to move forward. I can guarantee him that he will have the bill in a matter of seconds, lest we harp on the complexity of all of this to the point where it becomes a reason for not taking action; it is very simple and straightforward, as I have defined. We have done this before in a bipartisan way. God knows, there is not one Senator in here who doesn't understand the economy in their State. We can take prompt action right away, and for people out of work in Minnesota and around the country, they need this. We are pleased to do this. We will come back to the floor ASAP and pass it in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce, on behalf of myself and a large and bipartisan group of my colleagues, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002. I want to especially acknowledge the hard, really the relentless work, in particular of Senator Clinton and Senator Kennedy on this issue. They care deeply about the plight of hard-working men and women in their States and around the country, who are struggling, through no fault of their own, to deal with the effects of our flagging economy. I commend their work. We cannot have a secure Nation if we do not address issues of our economic security as well. Working men and women around the country and in Minnesota, blue collar and white collar, are hurting. The economy, battered by corporate accountability scandals, plummeting stock prices, and now flagging consumer confidence, is deteriorating. And the jobs simply are not there. Minnesota has lost more than 40,000 jobs in the past 18 months. There are currently 123,000 Minnesotans unemployed. In the second quarter of this year, unemployed workers in Minnesota looking for jobs outnumbered unfilled jobs by 2-1. The national picture is no different. Nationally, more than 2 million jobs have been lost over the last 18 months. We have more than 8 million men and women out of work. This is the only Administration in the past 50 years that has presided over a decline in private sector jobs. What's more, long term unemployment is up sharply. Nationally, nearly 1 in five of the 8 million unemployed workers have been out of work for 6 months or more. Between May and July of this year, around 900,000 workers exhausted the extended unemployment benefits made available through the unemployment insurance extension in March. By the end of 2002 we expect over 2 million workers to exhaust these benefits. In Minnesota, through the end of July, over 17,000 workers had exhausted the benefits that we temporarily extended back in March of this year, with thousands more likely to exhaust in the future. That is why we are announcing today the introduction of the ``Economic Security Act of 2002.'' It does the following: Extends, through July 2003, the temporary extended benefits program, due to expire on December 31st. Provides another 13 weeks of extended benefits for workers running out of benefits in all states and another 20 weeks in high unemployment states. This mirrors the benefit extensions signed into law by Bush, Sr. The triggers used to determine ``high unemployment'' are: A 4 percent Adjusted Insured Unemployment Rate (AUIR) or a 6 percent Total Unemployment Rate (TUR). The AUIR and the TUR are exactly the same triggers used in the early 90's. The levels are different to reflect the new reality of a significantly lower natural unemployment rate. [In the 90's we used a 5 percent AUIR and a 9 percent TUR, virtually no states would trigger at these levels today]. In the 90's we extended benefits 5 times, by large bi-partisan votes. Three of those votes (91-2; 94-2; and 93-3) were during Bush 1. And the need is even greater now. By year's end we expect 2.2 million workers to have exhausted. In 1992, for a comparable period, there were only 1.4 million workers who exhausted benefits. The need is urgent--we should pass this measure immediately.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce, on behalf of myself and a large and bipartisan group of my colleagues, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002. I want to especially acknowledge the hard, really the relentless work, in particular of Senator Clinton and Senator Kennedy on this issue. They care deeply about the plight of hard-working men and women in their States and around the country, who are struggling, through no fault of their own, to deal with the effects of our flagging economy. I commend their work. We cannot have a secure Nation if we do not address issues of our economic security as well. Working men and women around the country and in Minnesota, blue collar and white collar, are hurting. The economy, battered by corporate accountability scandals, plummeting stock prices, and now flagging consumer confidence, is deteriorating. And the jobs simply are not there. Minnesota has lost more than 40,000 jobs in the past 18 months. There are currently 123,000 Minnesotans unemployed. In the second quarter of this year, unemployed workers in Minnesota looking for jobs outnumbered unfilled jobs by 2-1. The national picture is no different. Nationally, more than 2 million jobs have been lost over the last 18 months. We have more than 8 million men and women out of work. This is the only Administration in the past 50 years that has presided over a decline in private sector jobs. What's more, long term unemployment is up sharply. Nationally, nearly 1 in five of the 8 million unemployed workers have been out of work for 6 months or more. Between May and July of this year, around 900,000 workers exhausted the extended unemployment benefits made available through the unemployment insurance extension in March. By the end of 2002 we expect over 2 million workers to exhaust these benefits. In Minnesota, through the end of July, over 17,000 workers had exhausted the benefits that we temporarily extended back in March of this year, with thousands more likely to exhaust in the future. That is why we are announcing today the introduction of the ``Economic Security Act of 2002.'' It does the following: Extends, through July 2003, the temporary extended benefits program, due to expire on December 31st. Provides another 13 weeks of extended benefits for workers running out of benefits in all states and another 20 weeks in high unemployment states. This mirrors the benefit extensions signed into law by Bush, Sr. The triggers used to determine ``high unemployment'' are: A 4 percent Adjusted Insured Unemployment Rate (AUIR) or a 6 percent Total Unemployment Rate (TUR). The AUIR and the TUR are exactly the same triggers used in the early 90's. The levels are different to reflect the new reality of a significantly lower natural unemployment rate. [In the 90's we used a 5 percent AUIR and a 9 percent TUR, virtually no states would trigger at these levels today]. In the 90's we extended benefits 5 times, by large bi-partisan votes. Three of those votes (91-2; 94-2; and 93-3) were during Bush 1. And the need is even greater now. By year's end we expect 2.2 million workers to have exhausted. In 1992, for a comparable period, there were only 1.4 million workers who exhausted benefits. The need is urgent--we should pass this measure immediately.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeffrey Scholder and Robert Kerr, a fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am pleased to support the Byrd amendment. I thank Senator Joseph Lieberman for his fine work. He was talking about a Department of Homeland Security long before the administration and understood the need. I believe the Byrd amendment is a key improvement.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Maryland. His remarks reinforce what all of us believe. The Byrd amendment would allow for a more orderly transition of authorities to a new Homeland Security Department than the underlying bill would otherwise provide for. I support the underlying bill, and I commend the chairman of the Government Affairs Committee and others for their work on it. Long before the Administration concluded that a single new Federal department could best protect our domestic security, the committee and its chairman, Senator Lieberman, developed the framework for such a department. Now that framework is essentially the bill we have before us. It is a good framework, but I believe this amendment is a key improvement. This bill authorizes the largest reorganization of Federal Government functions undertaken in half a century. While we have been debating the bill for several weeks, I agree with the Senator from West Virginia that it is a task that warrants deliberation and care. It is the right of Congress to participate deeply both in creating the framework for this needed new department, but also in overseeing key details of the transition to it. Indeed, in my view, we have not only the right to participate. We have an obligation. The Byrd amendment would allow immediate creation of a new Homeland Security Department. It would immediately establish the superstructure of the Secretary and the six directorates as outlined by the Lieberman substitute, and then require that the administration submit three separate legislative proposals to transfer agencies and functions to the new Department. This would give Congress the opportunity to gauge and modify how the new Department is being implemented, while it drafts legislation to transfer additional functions and agencies and would provide Congress with additional means to head off problems that traditionally plague and delay massive reorganizations. What's more, under the Byrd amendment, Congress would be required to act on these legislative proposals within 13 months on enactment, which is roughly the same time period outlined by the Lieberman plan. Once the Department of Homeland Security is established, the Secretary will submit legislative proposals and recommendations for the orderly transfer of agencies and functions, based on the Department's actual needs in carrying out its mission. Through additional involvement in the implementation of agency transfers and reorganizations, Congress will be able to exercise meaningful oversight after the enactment of homeland security legislation. The Byrd amendment gives Congress a much-needed opportunity to review more thoroughly the details of the reorganization during the one-year transition period established in the Lieberman bill. Congress can use this time to consider specific agency transfers, worker protection policies, new intelligence authority, and constitutional protections, instead of handing off unresolved questions for the President and the Secretary to answer. Under the Byrd amendment, Congress will receive better information from the administration during the implementation the Lieberman bill, including the criteria used by the administration in choosing which agencies and functions to transfer into the Department. The Byrd Amendment guides us towards a more rational approach for undertaking the task of creating the new department, and I support it. Protecting the American homeland is not just President Bush's responsibility. It is our responsibility as well. And it is the responsibility of future presidents and future Congresses. So we must make sure that we do everything within our power now to create the very best structure to protect our's and future generations. As I have said, Madam President, the Byrd amendment will allow for the immediate creation of a new Homeland Security Department. It is important to understand that. There is no delay, and we have the same basic legislative time period of 13 months. Once the Department of Homeland Security is established, the Secretary will submit legislative proposals and recommendations for the orderly transfer of agencies and functions based on the Department's actual needs in carrying on its mission. Through additional involvement in the implementation of the agency transfers and reorganizations, Congress will be able to exercise meaningful oversight after the enactment of homeland security legislation. That is what is so important about the Byrd amendment. It guides us toward a more rational approach to the undertaking of the task of creating a new Department. I support it. Protecting the American homeland is not just President Bush's responsibility or any President's responsibility; it is our responsibility as well. It is the responsibility of future Presidents and future Congresses. We must do everything within our power now to create the very best structure to protect our future and that of our children and grandchildren. I believe the Byrd amendment is a positive contribution. Senator Byrd plays a key, indispensable role. Senator Byrd has been on the floor week after week calling on all of us to exercise our constitutional responsibility; talking about the importance of legislative involvement, the importance of checks and balances, the importance of deliberation, the importance of understanding full well the consequences of what we do. The Senator from West Virginia deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his exceptional work as a Senator. I am very pleased to support the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, less than 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is really an amendment that has everything in the world to do with whether or not a lot of people in northwestern Minnesota are going to go under economically or not. We had 79 votes to provide this disaster assistance. For northwest Minnesota, this will probably be about $300 million. There are some who say the administration has shown they understand it is a serious problem because they are going to commit $850 million for drought relief. First, this is a 50 cent fix to a million dollar problem. Second, I don't think taking this small amount of money out of the School Lunch Program and helping people for a couple of weeks is the answer to what has happened around our country--be it fire or be it floods or be it drought. I was up in northwest Minnesota on Friday. I do not know how I can continue to go back up there and explain to people how it can be that week after week this is being blocked. As far as I am concerned, we can have up-or-down votes on all these amendments. That is my own view. But I say to my colleagues, I implore them, I beg you, let's break this traffic jam and let's have the votes and let's move this forward. Really, time is not neutral for so many of the independent producers and the farmers in northwest Minnesota. The FEMA assistance has been great, but it is not going to help them. There has been massive damage to cropland. Crop insurance comes nowhere near covering it. We have had this ridiculous debate about how it is going to come out of the farm programs. It is not going to happen. CBO won't score it that way. But close to $6 billion nationally will not be additional money we are going to spend on the farm program because prices are up. But for the farmers in northwest Minnesota and the producers in northwest Minnesota, they have no production. For me as a Senator, this is the priority. It is just impossible to meet with people--without sounding melodramatic--to just look at their eyes and know what they are going through and explain how, once again, this is being blocked or filibustered. I know we are not going to win on this vote, but I urge colleagues to please vote for cloture. It would make a huge difference to a lot of really honest, hard-working, salt of the Earth people in northwest Minnesota. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I regret that I was necessarily absent for the vote on the confirmation of Reena Raggi to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I would like to include in the Record that I would have voted ``yes'' on this nomination.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I regret that I was necessarily absent for the vote on the confirmation of Timothy Corrigan to the United States District Court in Florida due to my attending events in Minnesota commemorating the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11. I would ask that the Record reflect that I would have voted yes on this nomination.