Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank my colleagues for passing H. Con. Res. 406. This resolution commemorates the tremendous sacrifice made by so many Lao-Hmong during the Vietnam War. As a Senator from Minnesota, I am proud to represent one of the largest Hmong populations in America. My experience as a Senator has become so much greater as a result of coming to know the noble history and rich culture of the Hmong people in Minnesota. I am in awe of their sacrifice for the American people. Hmong soldiers died at ten times the rate of American soldiers in the Vietnam War. Yet, because America's war effort in Laos was covert, the sacrifices and service of the Hmong and Lao veterans is still largely untold. The legislation we passed today is a tribute to the Hmong people's sacrifice for our country. It is a small but meaningful step in honoring and fulfilling our debt to the Hmong and Lao veterans and their families. This resolution also commends the leadership of the Lao Veterans of America for its work in passing several pieces of legislation I introduced with Congressman Vento that would expedite citizenship for Hmong veterans and their wives. In addition, they led the fight to erect a monument in Arlington National Cemetery in honor of the Hmong who died in the Vietnam War. The Lao Veterans of America, including Cherzong Vang, in Minnesota, and Colonel Vang Yee Vang, Executive Director of the organization, has worked tirelessly to educate Congress and the public about the history and contributions of the Hmong people in our county. This resolution is a fitting response to this important work. Again, I thank my colleagues for passing this excellent and overdue legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention a disturbing new Federal study related to chemical plant safety. This report, dated September 24th from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, describes the hazards of what are called reactive chemicals. These are substances that can react violently, decompose, burn or explode when managed improperly in industrial settings. Process accidents involving reactive chemicals are reported to be responsible for significant numbers of deaths and injuries and considerable property losses in U.S. industries. The investigation by the independent, non-regulatory board points out significant deficiencies in federal safety regulations that are meant to control the dangers from chemical processes. As the result of these inadequacies, more than half of the serious accidents caused by reactive chemicals occurred in processes that were exempt from the major Federal process safety rules. These regulations known as the OSHA Process Safety Management standard and the EPA Risk Management Program rule -were mandated in the landmark 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Unfortunately, OSHA chose to regulate just a small handful of reactive chemicals only 38 substances out of the many thousands of chemicals used in commerce. EPA for its part did not regulate any reactive chemicals at all. The tragic results of these omissions now seem apparent. The Chemical Safety Board uncovered 167 serious reactive chemical incidents in the U.S. over the last 20 years. More than half of these occurred after OSHA's rules were adopted in 1992. Serious chemical explosions and fires continue to occur in states around the country. Recent fatal accidents in Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are among those catalogued in the Chemical Safety Board's investigation. Take the case, for example, of 45-year old Rodney Gott, a supervisor at the Phillips Chemical complex in Pasadena, Texas, outside of Houston. On numerous occasions Mr. Gott was spared as deadly accidents occurred at his plant and those nearby. On one occasion in 1989, 23 of his coworkers were killed during a chemical explosion at his plant. But eleven years later, as he worked next to a 12,000 gallon storage tank containing reactive chemical residues, he fell victim to a huge explosion. Sixty-nine of his colleagues were injured, including some who were burned almost beyond recognition. Rodney Gott never made it out. As a result of the loophole in OSHA and EPA regulations, many industrial facilities that handle reactive chemicals are not required to follow basic good engineering and safety management practices practices such as hazard analysis, worker training, and maintenance of process equipment. Frankly, this is hard to understand. These sound to me like practices that should be followed universally in the chemical industry. There should be little disagreement about the need to require these practices wherever dangerous reactive chemicals are in use. Nonetheless, OSHA has failed to take action to improve its process safety standard. The last administration had regulation of reactive chemicals on its agenda, but did not complete work on the task before leaving office. In December 2001, the new OSHA administration inexplicably dropped rulemaking on reactive chemicals from their published regulatory agenda. I convened an oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training in July of this year to examine this issue among others. OSHA Assistant Secretary John Henshaw appeared at that hearing. While he earlier stated that reactive chemical safety is a ``vital interest'' of the agency, he would not commit to me any particular timetable to put this important rulemaking back on track. I am deeply concerned at OSHA's failure to issue new and revised safety standards on an efficient schedule and at the low priority this item appears to have on OSHA's agenda. As the Chemical Safety Board's compelling statistics make clear, every year of delay on this regulation will cause additional needless deaths among America's working families. And there is ever present risk of a public catastrophe. The Chemical Safety Board has now issued strong recommendations to both OSHA and EPA to address the safety of reactive chemicals through new regulations. President Bush's new appointee to head the Board, Carolyn Merritt, endorsed both these actions. A 30-year veteran of the chemical industry, she lamented the loss of life from reactive chemicals, noting that ``it is much cheaper to invest in sound safety management systems than to pay the cost of a major accident.'' I hope this is a view that prevails within the administration. By statute, OSHA and EPA must respond to the Chemical Safety Board's recommendations within 180 days. I urge both Assistant Secretary Henshaw and Administrator Whitman not to wait, but to immediately accept these recommendations and begin enacting new standards. Every day without these standards is another day of peril for workers like Rodney Gott, and for the thousands of people who live and work around chemical facilities nationwide. The Executive Summary of the Chemical Safety Board's investigation Improving Reactive Hazard Management is too lengthy to include in the record. It can be found on the Chemical Safety Board Web site: http:// www.csb.gov/info/docs/2002/ExecutiveSummary.pdf ____________________

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank both of my colleagues, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, for their fine work. I also think this is a very important piece of legislation, extremely important to our Armed Forces, just on the basis of making sure the men and women who serve our country--from salaries to living conditions, you name it; it is just an important piece of legislation. I also thank both of my colleagues for fighting in the conference committee to keep an amendment in that deals with the problem of domestic violence and sexual assault. We all agree that both Under Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld are well aware of some of the problems and are more than willing to put together the necessary task force and really take a long, hard look at this to make sure we do what we need to do. I thank them for that. This amendment also says we really need, on our bases, to have a place where women can go with some confidentiality if, in fact, they are in a situation where they are being battered and there is nowhere to go for support. It is extremely important for these women. It is extremely important for these children. It is extremely important for their families. I am glad this amendment is in. I know there was some discussion down at Fort Bragg about the amendment and it was very positive. So I thank my colleagues for supporting this. I want to finally express my indignation, even though I believe in both these Senators, that this is one part of this political process that drives people in Minnesota nuts, drives people in the country nuts, and drives me nuts. I brought an amendment to the floor. It was eminently reasonable. It said for those companies that go to Bermuda and renounce their citizenship so they do not pay their fair share of taxes--it was only prospective, it did not look back; it was for 1 year--they don't get Government contracts. If they want to renounce their citizenship and not pay their fair share of taxes, they are not going to get any government contract. There is overwhelming support on the floor of the Senate. I have learned my lesson now. I will have been here almost 12 years. Why haven't I learned my lesson and ask for a rollcall vote? Maybe that wouldn't have done any good, anyway. It seemed that there was strong support from some Senators who didn't want to vote against it but who didn't want to vote for it. But I thought, OK, the point is to get this passed. This was taken out in the conference committee. With all due respect, my understanding is the House conferees would not budge. They would not budge. I want to just say to the House Republican leadership and to the conferees, you are not going to be able to continue to win on these kinds of votes. People in Minnesota and in the United States of America are outraged that these companies go to Bermuda and renounce their citizenship and don't pay their fair share of taxes. You get into the conference committee, and it is the same old, same old, same old. Special interests do their lobbying and get the job done. Senator Lieberman is on the floor. If this homeland defense bill goes in, we have this provision in that bill. I am counting on Senator Lieberman's support. I thank Senator Inouye for fighting as hard as he could. I want to say to the House Republican conferees, you are not going to win this fight. This is going to come back. You are not going to win this fight. And you are way out of sync with about 90 percent of the people in this country on this question. Listen, I have been involved in fights on the floor of the Senate where I was the one who was in the minority. But let me tell you, on this question, you guys are just wrong. You took it out of conference committee, but you are not going to win this fight. We are going to bring this provision back, and we are going to get it into legislation. It is in the very sweeping homeland defense bill. We are going to keep it in that bill, and come back and back. It is not right for the businesses in your State, Mr. President--New Jersey--or in Minnesota. Ninety-nine percent of the businesses that play by the rules of the game but don't have the lawyers and the accountants to tell them how to evade paying their fair share of taxes--they wouldn't do it even if they could because they don't think it is right--why should they be penalized for doing the right thing? And why should these companies get away with murder? I wish this had not been taken out by the conference committee. I regret it. I know my colleagues did their best. We will be back. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Defense Department appropriations conference report. I believe we must provide the best possible training, equipment, and preparation for our military forces, so they can effectively carry out whatever peacekeeping, humanitarian, warfighting, or other missions they are given. They deserve the across-the-board pay raises of 4.1 percent, the incentive pay for difficult-to-fill assignments, and the reduced out-of-pocket housing costs from the current 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent contained in this conference report. The report would also fully fund active and reserve end strengths, including well over 700 new positions for the Army National Guard, which will hopefully ease the current burden on our overstretched men and women in uniform. For many years running, those in our Armed Forces have been suffering from a declining quality of life, despite rising military Pentagon budgets. The pressing needs of our dedicated men and women in uniform, and those of their families, must be addressed as they continue to be mobilized in the war against terrorism. This conference report goes far in addressing those needs. In addition, it provides $150 million for Army peer review breast cancer research and $85 million for prostate cancer research. The conference report also provides $417 million for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which seeks to secure airtight control over fissile materials and technologies from Russia and other former Soviet Union states to ensure that none makes its way into the hands of terrorists or to places like Iraq. Further, the report gives $70 million more than the administration requested to fund Israel's Arrow antimissile program, which could protect Israel against Scud missiles fired by Iraq. Finally, the report shifts $368.5 million from Crusader research and development to a new, lighter cannon, which will engage the expertise of the highly skilled workforce at the United Defense Industries plant in Minnesota. For these reasons and others, I will vote for it today. I also thank my colleagues on the conference committee for their hard work and their passage of an amendment I included in the Senate version of the Department of Defense appropriations bill. The final bill includes $5 million to put confidential victim advocates on military installations across the country. This would ensure that victims whose lives are in danger have an alternative place to turn that is confidential and where their needs can be met without qualification. The bill will also ensure that funds are made available to establish an impartial, multidisciplinary, confidential Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team. The team would be charged with investigating every domestic fatality in the military and helping to find ways to prevent fatalities in the future. Finally, this bill would require that the Secretary report to Congress on progress in implementing the recommendations of the National Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. Domestic violence is something that we in Congress must constantly work to prevent, reduce, and eventually end. Having such reporting will help us work with the Military to address this terrible problem. The National Defense Taskforce on Domestic Violence reported that ``Domestic Violence is an offense against the institutional values of the Military Services of the United States of America. It is an affront to human dignity, degrades the overall readiness of our armed forces, and will not be tolerated in the Department of Defense.'' I do not think anyone who has followed the recent events at Fort Bragg would disagree. Sadly, the North Carolina incidents, while unusual in that they were clustered within such a short time, are not unique. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service reported 54 domestic homicides in the Navy and Marines since 1995. The Army reported 131 and the Air Force reported 32. This is a problem that is by no means limited to the military, but its dimensions in the military context are complex. They need to be addressed. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz share that view. I applaud the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for the attention they have given to this issue and the willingness they have shown to address it. I also applaud my colleagues, particularly Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, for their leadership in passing this important legislation. I am however, very disappointed that the conferees took out an amendment, that I offered and which the Senate adopted, that would have barred any funds in this bill from being used to enter contracts with U.S. companies who incorporate overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. Former U.S. companies who have renounced their citizenship currently hold at least $2 billion worth of contracts with the Federal Government. I don't think that companies who aren't willing to pay their fair share of taxes should be able to hold these contracts. U.S. companies, that play by the rules, that pay their fair share of taxes, should not be forced to compete with bad actors who can undercut their bids because of a tax loophole. The loophole gives tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks to major multinational companies with significant non-U.S. business. It also puts other U.S. companies unwilling or unable to use this loophole at a competitive disadvantage. No American company should be penalized staying put while others renounce U.S. ``citizenship'' for a tax break. Well, the problem with all this is that when these companies don't pay their fair share, the rest of American tax payers and businesses are stuck with the bill. I think I can safely say that very few of the small businesses that I visit in Detroit Lakes, MN, or Mankato, in Minneapolis, or Duluth can avail themselves of the Bermuda Triangle. I should also say, that the amendment that the conferees dropped was really a very mild version. It was mostly prospective, and it only affected fiscal year 2003. I think it is appropriate for us to say that if the U.S. company wants to bid for a contract for U.S. defense work, then it should not renounce it's U.S. citizen for a tax break. We all make sacrifices in a time of war, the only sacrifice this amendment asked of federal contractors is that they pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else. My final point on this issue is that it is now clear that this fight is going to take place on the Homeland Security bill. The Senate has adopted a very strong amendment that I offered. There is a very similar amendment in the House passed bill. If the Republicans would end their filibuster of the homeland security bill we could get it to conference and get a good provision signed into law to crack down on these tax cheats. The Congress will not dodge this issue.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today Congress addressed the debacle that occurred to diminish democracy during our last Presidential election in Florida and other States. Access to the polls is a fundamental right; it is essential to our democracy. The 2000 elections raised to the national stage problems that have been all too common and all too familiar to many voters around the country. Systems of administering elections are in many places flawed, arbitrary, and discriminatory. I believe it is appropriate, even necessary, for Congress to impose high voter participation standards on States while providing the resources to meet those standards. The Help America Vote Act contains a number of important reforms of America's elections. The conference report authorizes funds to States to reform their election systems. It sets uniform, minimum standards for Federal elections. It will ensure the accuracy of state voter registration databases. It requires provisional balloting so registered voters are not turned away from polling places. And it will help ensure that disabled voters may cast their ballots independently and privately. The legislation is an important step forward, and I support it. However, I have reservations about provisions which have the potential, if not monitored and implemented carefully, to make voter registration more onerous for some voters. In particular, provisions that require voters to register using a driver's license number or Social Security number could cause problems. While the act would require States to assign voters a number if they do not have either of these forms of identification, I worry that some States may abuse this provision to make it harder for certain citizens, particularly new citizens and low income voters, to become registered. One technical clarification I want to make about that provision: In Minnesota we have same day voter registration. It is my understanding that this act would require the State to issue a voter ID number to a nonregistered voter who seeks to register on the day of the election, if the voter has a Social Security number or driver's license but does not have either number physically with him or her at the polling place on election day. The act requires new voters to check a box on the voter registration form to indicate they are a citizen. Since new voters are already required to attest that they are citizens on voter registration forms under current law, this seems to be a needless, redundant requirement which puts a hurdle, however small, in the way of new voters especially new citizens. These provisions are probably unnecessary. Finally, this legislation will only be fully effective if Congress and the administration step up the plate to fund it. I will urge my colleagues to fully fund this program. On balance, this bill is a step forward. I hope reality lives up to its promise.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry?

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. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to do so.

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. 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. 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 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. 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. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.

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. 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.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question.

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. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. We have time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, we want to work with him.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, shortly, a unanimous consent request will be made--and this is the third or fourth time--to pass S. 3009, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, which I have introduced with the Presiding Officer, who has done so much work on this and Senator Kennedy and others. This is the third or fourth time, and every day we are going to be making this request. To tell you the truth, I think it is absolutely unconscionable that the Senate has not acted on this and that the Republican leadership, each time, has thrown up a roadblock to extending unemployment benefits. Believe me, I would love nothing more than to be home campaigning, but I don't think we should leave here without extending unemployment benefits. In my State of Minnesota, there are 20,000 Minnesotans who have run out of unemployment benefits. Nationwide, there are about 900,000. I am sure many are in the State of New York, which the Chair represents. Colleagues, these are men and women who are hard-working, who have lost their jobs. The economy is flat. We are in economic trouble as a nation. It would be nice if the administration would get serious about the economy. How about a little bit of humanity? In the early 1990s when we went through this, we didn't hesitate to pass an extension of unemployment benefits under exactly the same circumstances. I think each time we had more than 95 votes, Republicans and Democrats alike. These are people who are flat on their backs through no fault of their own. They have run out of unemployment benefits. There are two different issues here. One, if we don't extend it by the end of December, some people who are receiving the current 13 weeks of benefits get cut off in the middle. I guess there is some discussion in the House with the Republican leadership about helping them. But the larger question--and we must make sure they get full unemployment benefits--is people who have just run out of all their unemployment benefits. In Minnesota right now, twice as many people are looking for jobs as there are jobs available. I want to make the argument--and I don't have a lot of time--and it is a two- or threefold argument. First, I appeal to the humanity of everybody here. Just imagine--I don't know how many Senators have been out of work--when you have a family to support, unemployment benefits are a lifeline. We have a trust fund, and we have more than enough money to support this. We are not spending additional money out of general revenue. How many Senators have been through this? If you are out of work and you have run out of benefits, you cannot put food on the table. It is a terrifying situation. I think our common humanity dictates that we must do this. Today, I want this unanimous consent agreement to be agreed to. Second of all, from an economic point of view, although I think a humanitarian appeal should be made, given a flat economy, you can count on it, Senators, that people who get an extension of unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks will be consuming because, believe me, they have to. They will be spending these dollars because they have to. Right now, the problem is they don't have enough money to make ends meet month by month. So, actually, you are injecting a much-needed stimulus into the economy. So if the first argument doesn't move your soul--the humanitarian argument that this is the right thing to do for people who are in real trouble through no fault of their own--how about doing it for the economy? My third argument is--I know we are debating the resolution on Iraq-- but I have said over and over, and I am sure the Chair has picked this up as well--I like to talk to the State legislature candidates because their methodology of campaigning for office, as opposed to when one is campaigning statewide, is knocking on doors every day. They pound the doors 3 or 4 hours every evening. I ask them: What are you hearing? People are talking about how worried they are about the economy; some people are out of work; other people are worried they will be. They are talking about health care, health care, health care, as though people have not heard it before. In our State, given all the cuts in education, they are talking about education as well. It is a false dichotomy. It is not as if people back home are worried about the economy but are not worried about Iraq, or are not worried about terrorists. They are worried about all of it, and all of us should be worried about all of it. I think the people I represent in Minnesota believe we are a great enough and a good enough country we can deal with our challenges in international affairs and, at the same time, we can deal with challenges that affect people in our country and our local communities, our families. I do not understand this false dichotomy where apparently the administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think we cannot address any of these economic issues. Apparently, they think we cannot focus on any domestic issues any longer; cannot even provide an extension of unemployment benefits to people. I believe some colleagues do not want to do this because they feel it is an admission the economy is not doing that well. The economy is not doing that well. We should wake up and smell the coffee. The people I represent are still waiting on the Federal Government to provide the resources we said we were going to provide for schools, education, and our kids. The House Republican leadership and the Senate Republican leadership do not want to bring an appropriations bill out here that deals with education. We could easily provide more funding for Pell grants, making higher education not less but more accessible. We certainly should provide more funding for special education which would help all of our districts, and provide more funding for title I. Again, the Republican leadership and the White House do not want anything to do with it. I am going to a press conference in a couple of minutes on--that sounds melodramatic, life or death; it is a bit like unemployment benefits--disaster relief. I have never been in the Senate when we have not provided disaster relief. The people in northwest Minnesota are flooded out, they are gone, it is over for them, and this administration is opposed to this bill. I have never voted against disaster relief in any part of the country. If something happens in New York, Madam President, I will vote for the money the people need. People do not ask for hurricanes, tornadoes, fire, and flooding, but if it should happen to the people in Minnesota, I ask you to support that. Whatever happened to some sense of community? Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism? Compassionate conservatism dictates, at the very minimum, before we leave that the Senate pass this legislation I have introduced to extend unemployment benefits. I will come out to the Senate Chamber and give enough speeches to deafen all the gods until this is done. Frankly, I think on the other side of the aisle, people should feel uneasy and uncomfortable in blocking this legislation. They are putting up a roadblock to providing help to people who really need the help. This is the right thing to do. It is certainly profamily, it is certainly prochildren, and it is certainly compassionate. I do not know what the delay is. Time is not neutral for a lot of people. Madam President, by way of concluding--I know other colleagues are going to be out on the floor--I thank the Presiding Officer, since, as the Presiding Officer, she cannot speak for herself, at least for this moment--she does a good job speaking for herself, otherwise, all the time. Madam President, you have been a leader in bringing this before the Senate. I thank you for doing that. We are not going to let up until this legislation is passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, we did not suggest the absence of a quorum?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am going to be joined by Senator Kennedy in just a moment. He will be making a request, and we will wait for a response on the part of our colleague. While I am waiting for Senator Kennedy, let me say again I think we have a huge disconnect between some of what is going on in the Senate-- or what is not going on in the Senate--and the people we represent. In Minnesota--I do not know about other States--people in Minnesota cannot understand for the life of them what in the world is the delay in extending unemployment benefits. People in Minnesota do not know that in the early nineties we passed similar legislation and did it in a bipartisan way. They do not know there is plenty of precedent for it. And they do not know all about unanimous consent, and how one Senator can object, and all of the rest. What people do have in Minnesota is a sense of right and wrong. Let's talk values for a moment. The values of people in Minnesota are when the economy goes south--I know some of my colleagues do not like to talk about the economy--when the economy is flat, and when so many people have lost their jobs and are hurting, and their families are hurting, people in Minnesota believe we ought to reach out and help them. This legislation I have introduced, with the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton, should pass today. I see my colleague, Senator Kennedy, is in the Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a short time today about the Iraq resolution, and tomorrow I will have a chance to speak at greater length. I thank Senator Kennedy for allowing me to precede him. I also tell my colleague from Georgia that his speech on the concurrent receipt was powerful and, having spent the whole day with veterans yesterday, is absolutely right. It is critically important that this defense appropriations bill go through with that provision. Mr. President, I did not have a chance to hear the President speak last night, but I read the transcript. I think it is important that the President focus on obtaining international support. The military option should only be considered as the last option. I believe that people were glad to hear that last night in Minnesota and in the country. The problem is that the actual resolution before us goes in a different direction. What this resolution does is give the President the authority for a possible go-it-alone, unilateral military strike and ground war. I think this would be a mistake. We should not go it alone. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force. But we must do this together with our allies. We must bring the international community on board. This resolution allows for a preemptive, unilateral strike, which I believe would be a huge mistake. When Secretaries Kissinger and Albright testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, I asked both of them about the consequences of going alone versus working with the international community. First I asked: Shouldn't the goal be disarmament, and shouldn't we make every effort to try to make disarmament happen before taking military action? They both were in agreement. Secretary Kissinger said: Yes, we need to play this out. No one trusts Saddam Hussein. Everybody knows he is a brutal dictator. That is not the point. The point is how to proceed; how to do this the right way. The focus should be on disarmament and getting the support of our allies in the international community. I do not think we should be approving a preemptive, unilateral strike by the United States, going it alone, or only with Great Britain. I asked the former secretaries what the differences would be. They spelled out hugely different consequences between our going it alone, if, in fact, military action was necessary, versus taking action with our allies. The former secretaries made the following points. If we take unilateral military action Saddam Hussein will have a better chance of uniting the world community against us, rather than vice versa. Moreover, there could be grave consequences in the Near East and South Asia that could include energizing other radical elements and increasing support for al-Qaida. Would this not play into the hands of the radicals? This is a big question if we go it alone. What about our men and women, our sons and daughters who would be put in harm's way? What would the consequences be on the ground for them if we go it alone versus with our allies? What about this war against terror? As a father and grandfather of six children I take al-Qaida very seriously. Unfortunately international terror is a part of the world in which we now live. Will we have the same international cooperation to fight international terror if we go it alone? In many parts of the world we need the cooperation, assets, and on-the-ground intelligence of our allies for the continued war on terror. I think going it alone, a preemptive military strike, perhaps a ground war, could very well undercut that effort. Mr. President, I have one more point. I am not going to talk at length about my interaction with people in Minnesota over the last several days since I announced my opposition to the first resolution, but I will tell my colleagues this: Many people have come up to me, and I had great discussions with people in Minnesota. I cannot thank them enough. I do not really know what the breakdown is in terms of X percentage this way or that way, but I will say that the people in Minnesota and our country are worried about this issue. They are worried about us going it alone. They are worried about what might happen to our sons and daughters in Iraq. They far prefer we work together with our allies. They far prefer we have international support and that the focus be on disarmament. I believe that is the direction in which we should go. That is not what this resolution before us asks us to do. Therefore, I will vote no on this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Kerr, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of the debate.