Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am glad we have the opportunity today to introduce legislation that corrects a sad injustice. This injustice makes American consumers the least likely of any in the industrialized world to be able to afford drugs manufactured by the American pharmaceutical industry. That's because of the unconscionable prices the industry charges only here in the United States. When I return to Minnesota which I do frequently, I meet with many constituents, but none with more compelling stories than senior citizens struggling to make ends meet because of the high cost of prescription drugs, life-saving drugs that are not covered under the Medicare program. Ten or twenty years ago these same senior citizens were going to work everyday, in the stores, and factories, and mines in Minnesota, earning an honest paycheck, and paying their taxes without protest. Now they wonder, how can this government, their government, stand by, when the medicines they need are out of reach. And it is not just that Medicare won't pay for these drugs. The unfairness which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated of course by the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States, the same drugs that can be purchased for frequently half the price in Canada. These are the exact same drugs, manufactured in the exact same facilities with the exact same safety precautions. All the legislators speaking today have heard the first-hand stores from our constituents back home. Our constituents are justifiably frustrated and discouraged when they can't afford to buy prescription drugs that are made in the United States, unless they go across the border to Canada where those same drugs, manufactured in the same facilities are available for about half the price. Senior citizens have lost their patience in waiting for answers, and so have I. Driving to Canada every few months to buy prescription drugs at affordable prices isn't the solution; it's a symptom of how broken parts of our health care system are. Americans regardless of political party have a fundamental belief in fairness, and we know a rip-off when we see one. It is time to end that rip-off. While we can be proud of both American scientific research that produces new miracle cures and the high standards of safety and efficacy that we expect to be followed at the FDA, it is shameful that America's most vulnerable citizens, the chronically ill and the elderly, are being asked to pay the highest prices in the world here in the U.S. for the exact same medicines that are manufactured here but sold more cheaply in other countries. That is why I am introducing with my colleagues today the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2002. This bill will amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow American pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada into the United States, as long as the drugs meet FDA's strict safety standards. Pharmacists and wholesalers will be able to purchase these drugs, often manufactured right here in the U.S., at much lower prices and then pass those savings on to consumers. In addition, the bill would give individuals a waiver to import prescription drugs from Canada as long as the medicine is for their own personal use and the amount of medicine imported is a 90-day supply or less. This provision will give consumers confidence that, if they follow the rules for personal importation, they won't have to worry about their medicines being stopped at the border. Our bill addresses the absurd situation by which American consumers are paying substantially higher prices for their prescription drugs than are the citizens of Canada. The bill does not create any new Federal programs. Instead, it uses principles frequently cited in both houses of the Congress, principles of free trade and competition, the help make it possible for American consumers to purchase the prescription drugs they need. And the need is clear. A recent informal survey by the Minnesota Senior Federation on the price of six commonly used prescription medications showed that Minnesota consumers pay, on average, nearly double, 196 percent, what their Canadian counterparts pay. These excessive prices apply to drugs manufactured by U.S. pharmaceutical firms, the same drugs that are sold in Canada for a fraction of the U.S. price. Pharmacists could sell prescription drugs for less here in the United States, if they could buy and import these same drugs from Canada at lower prices than the pharmaceutical companies charge here. Now, however, Federal law allows only the manufacturer of a drug to import it into the U.S. Thus American pharmacists and wholesalers must pay the exorbitant prices charged by the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. market and pass along those high prices to consumers. It is time to stop protecting the pharmaceutical industry's outrageous profits, and they are outrageous. Let's take a look at the numbers, so there can be no mistake: Where the average Fortune 500 industry in the United States returned 2.2 percent profits as a percentage of revenue, the pharmaceutical industry returned 18.5 percent. Where the average Fortune 500 industry returned 2.5 percent profits as a percentage of their assets, the pharmaceutical industry returned 16.5 percent. Where the average Fortune 500 industry returned less than 10 percent profits as a percentage of shareholders equity, the pharmaceutical industry returned 33.2 percent. Those huge profits are no surprise to America's senior citizens because they know where those profits come from, they come from their own pocketbooks. It is time to end the price gouging. We need legislation that can assure our senior citizens and all Americans that safe and affordable prescription medications at last will be as available in the United States of America as they are in Canada. The bill we are introducing today accomplishes that end. I also want to point out that our bill includes important safety precautions to make sure we are not sacrificing safety for price. The safety measures provide strong protection for the American public. These protections include: Strict FDA oversight; importation from Canada only; strict handling requirements for importers, like those already in place for manufacturers; registration of Canadian pharmacists and wholesalers with the HHS Secretary; lab testing to screen out counterfeits; lab testing to ensure purity, potency, and safety of medications and; authority for the HHS Secretary to immediately suspend importation of prescription drugs that appear counterfeit or otherwise violate the law. The only thing that is not protected in this bill is the excessive profits of the pharmaceutical industry. My job as a United States Senator is not to protect profits but to protect the people. Colleagues, please join us and support this thoughtful and important bill that will help make prescription drugs affordable to the American people.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am glad we have the opportunity today to introduce legislation that corrects a sad injustice. This injustice makes American consumers the least likely of any in the industrialized world to be able to afford drugs manufactured by the American pharmaceutical industry. That's because of the unconscionable prices the industry charges only here in the United States. When I return to Minnesota which I do frequently, I meet with many constituents, but none with more compelling stories than senior citizens struggling to make ends meet because of the high cost of prescription drugs, life-saving drugs that are not covered under the Medicare program. Ten or twenty years ago these same senior citizens were going to work everyday, in the stores, and factories, and mines in Minnesota, earning an honest paycheck, and paying their taxes without protest. Now they wonder, how can this government, their government, stand by, when the medicines they need are out of reach. And it is not just that Medicare won't pay for these drugs. The unfairness which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated of course by the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States, the same drugs that can be purchased for frequently half the price in Canada. These are the exact same drugs, manufactured in the exact same facilities with the exact same safety precautions. All the legislators speaking today have heard the first-hand stores from our constituents back home. Our constituents are justifiably frustrated and discouraged when they can't afford to buy prescription drugs that are made in the United States, unless they go across the border to Canada where those same drugs, manufactured in the same facilities are available for about half the price. Senior citizens have lost their patience in waiting for answers, and so have I. Driving to Canada every few months to buy prescription drugs at affordable prices isn't the solution; it's a symptom of how broken parts of our health care system are. Americans regardless of political party have a fundamental belief in fairness, and we know a rip-off when we see one. It is time to end that rip-off. While we can be proud of both American scientific research that produces new miracle cures and the high standards of safety and efficacy that we expect to be followed at the FDA, it is shameful that America's most vulnerable citizens, the chronically ill and the elderly, are being asked to pay the highest prices in the world here in the U.S. for the exact same medicines that are manufactured here but sold more cheaply in other countries. That is why I am introducing with my colleagues today the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2002. This bill will amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow American pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada into the United States, as long as the drugs meet FDA's strict safety standards. Pharmacists and wholesalers will be able to purchase these drugs, often manufactured right here in the U.S., at much lower prices and then pass those savings on to consumers. In addition, the bill would give individuals a waiver to import prescription drugs from Canada as long as the medicine is for their own personal use and the amount of medicine imported is a 90-day supply or less. This provision will give consumers confidence that, if they follow the rules for personal importation, they won't have to worry about their medicines being stopped at the border. Our bill addresses the absurd situation by which American consumers are paying substantially higher prices for their prescription drugs than are the citizens of Canada. The bill does not create any new Federal programs. Instead, it uses principles frequently cited in both houses of the Congress, principles of free trade and competition, the help make it possible for American consumers to purchase the prescription drugs they need. And the need is clear. A recent informal survey by the Minnesota Senior Federation on the price of six commonly used prescription medications showed that Minnesota consumers pay, on average, nearly double, 196 percent, what their Canadian counterparts pay. These excessive prices apply to drugs manufactured by U.S. pharmaceutical firms, the same drugs that are sold in Canada for a fraction of the U.S. price. Pharmacists could sell prescription drugs for less here in the United States, if they could buy and import these same drugs from Canada at lower prices than the pharmaceutical companies charge here. Now, however, Federal law allows only the manufacturer of a drug to import it into the U.S. Thus American pharmacists and wholesalers must pay the exorbitant prices charged by the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. market and pass along those high prices to consumers. It is time to stop protecting the pharmaceutical industry's outrageous profits, and they are outrageous. Let's take a look at the numbers, so there can be no mistake: Where the average Fortune 500 industry in the United States returned 2.2 percent profits as a percentage of revenue, the pharmaceutical industry returned 18.5 percent. Where the average Fortune 500 industry returned 2.5 percent profits as a percentage of their assets, the pharmaceutical industry returned 16.5 percent. Where the average Fortune 500 industry returned less than 10 percent profits as a percentage of shareholders equity, the pharmaceutical industry returned 33.2 percent. Those huge profits are no surprise to America's senior citizens because they know where those profits come from, they come from their own pocketbooks. It is time to end the price gouging. We need legislation that can assure our senior citizens and all Americans that safe and affordable prescription medications at last will be as available in the United States of America as they are in Canada. The bill we are introducing today accomplishes that end. I also want to point out that our bill includes important safety precautions to make sure we are not sacrificing safety for price. The safety measures provide strong protection for the American public. These protections include: Strict FDA oversight; importation from Canada only; strict handling requirements for importers, like those already in place for manufacturers; registration of Canadian pharmacists and wholesalers with the HHS Secretary; lab testing to screen out counterfeits; lab testing to ensure purity, potency, and safety of medications and; authority for the HHS Secretary to immediately suspend importation of prescription drugs that appear counterfeit or otherwise violate the law. The only thing that is not protected in this bill is the excessive profits of the pharmaceutical industry. My job as a United States Senator is not to protect profits but to protect the people. Colleagues, please join us and support this thoughtful and important bill that will help make prescription drugs affordable to the American people.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I have about only 5 minutes to speak on an issue that is important for all of us in our country and in the world. That is the Middle East. There is much to say, and 5 minutes is just a beginning. We were not in session on Friday so today I will briefly present my analysis of Secretary Powell's trip. There was a lot of discussion in some of the media that Secretary Powell was unsuccessful in his endeavor. I actually choose to view his effort as but a first step. It is extremely important--I know the Chair believes as well--that our Government be engaged, even more so now. Secretary Powell's trip was an important first step. There are now discussions under way, very tough discussions, about security measures. Ultimately, the question is, how do we get from where we are right now to where we all hope we can be so that there can be peace for Israel and for her neighbors? That is the question. The emotion people feel, the sentiment people feel, that I feel, that all of us feel, is very vivid. When Israelis were murdered at a seder meal, as a first-generation American of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution from Russia, it sent chills down my spine. When I read about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, some of what has happened in France, the targeting of Jewish teenagers, the physical attacks, the hatred, it is frightening. Inside, you feel the indignation, and you say to yourself: We will not let people do this to Jews anywhere in the world. I called Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz, who spoke at the rally, and said: We also have to be concerned about the loss of life of innocent Palestinians--not terrorists, innocent Palestinians. He is right. I called him and said: I believe, based upon my own background, when I think about my mother and father, who are no longer here, what you said should have been said. I think it was important to say that. It is a very Jewish thing to say in terms of my sense of Jewish justice. I can't imagine my mother and father not saying exactly the same. I thank Secretary Powell for his trip. Clearly, it takes courage to do what he did. He is out there. Frankly, he is doing the right thing. I believe now, however, we have to come forward with some very creative political ideas about how we can move to some kind of framework. It seems as if the present course will result in a deeper river of blood. How can we get to some kind of a framework that makes some sense so that we can get to where we want to get, which is people living in dignity side by side, with secure borders, and an end to the killing. That is, how do we get there? I wish I had the answer. Secretary Powell needs to go back. I don't know whether he thinks I should be saying this in the Senate, but we will need him to go back. Our government has to stay engaged in these negotiations. Over the next couple of days, I will try to talk about some of the discussions I have had with people about ways in which we can move to a different framework--not the present course but a different course. It is terribly important. I am not naive about this. It is very complicated, and it is very difficult. Since we were not in session Friday, I didn't want to let some of the interpretation of Secretary Powell's work be the only interpretation. Again, the emotion we feel and the indignation that many of us have is quite understandable. The real question is, how can we be constructive? What can we do gestaltwise that makes sense? What kind of proposals can we propose that are credible, that somehow will result in a place and time when Israel lives in peace and Israel's neighbors also live in peace. That is the question. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I certainly will not object. I see colleagues on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley--and I gather Senator Murkowski also is going to speak; is that correct--and the Senator from Alaska speaks, that I then be recognized to speak after Senator Murkowski, in that order.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Let me start not with a disclaimer but just to be clear. My State of Minnesota is a leader in ethanol production. We have 14 ethanol plants, of which 12 are owned and operated by farmer co-ops. Last year, the total production from Minnesota ethanol was 200 million gallons, which was 95 percent of our State's ethanol needs. After having said that, because this is so important to Minnesota, so important to farm country, so important to what we call greater Minnesota, I make some other arguments that go beyond Minnesota. Expanded ethanol production promises to relieve us from some of our dependence on foreign energy supplies. With the current cost of home heating oil and gasoline going up, every American knows the value of achieving more energy independence. Ethanol is important to achieving energy independence. Some of my colleagues say: Of course you are for ethanol, Paul, given you represent Minnesota. But I can make a lot of good public interest arguments for ethanol. Second, expanded ethanol production provides a clean fuel which can be relatively pollution-free; that is certainly not the case with oil. As United States negotiators hammer out agreements--I hope--over global climate change, we are being constantly reminded of the long-term environmental costs of fossil fuel use. We have, A, energy independence; and, B, a compelling environmental case. Also, because ethanol is oxygen-rich when added to gasoline, it burns cleaner, reducing the amount of harmful tailpipe emissions in the air. Fewer toxins, carcinogens enter your lungs. So better health is a third compelling public interest argument for ethanol. Finally, ethanol means rural development, bringing employment to a lot of the parts of our country where people are hurting the most. A recent study by Northwestern University concluded that nationwide, ethanol production boosts employment by 195,000 jobs, it improves America's balance of trade by $2 billion, and it adds $450 million to State tax receipts. There are a lot of compelling arguments that can be made. In Minnesota, it creates jobs for Minnesotans. In fact, Minnesota has the Nation's most significant cooperative--I am really proud of that-- ethanol industry owned by more than 7,000 Minnesota farm families. I want to go back to the argument about energy independence, and I will make it in a different context. The whole war on terrorism has renewed interest, as it should, in reducing the energy imports and diversifying our energy sector. Oil imports today account for 56 percent of our oil consumption. The EIA estimates that our import dependency could grow to 70 percent by 2020--70 percent of our oil production imports by 2020. We spend more than $300 million a day for imported oil, with an annual cost of more than $100 billion imported oil. Alarmingly, Iraq represents the fastest growing source of United States oil imports, exporting 700,000 barrels per day to the United States. We send Saddam Hussein more than $12 million per day--$4.3 billion annually--for his oil. I do not know that I need to make any more of this case. I just don't see the point of subsidizing terrorism through the importation of oil from rogue nations. American agriculture, rural America, has part of the answer for energy independence. As to environmental benefits, I will make the point again. Ethanol continues to be an important tool for improving air quality in our Nation's cities. Ethanol reduces all the criteria of pollutants--carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, NOx, toxics, and particulates--all of them. The benefits are going to continue. Studies show that ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 20 percent and particulates in the air by 40 percent. So there is a compelling case to make for Minnesota, a compelling case to make for our co-ops and family farmers. Value-added agriculture? You had better believe it. But a compelling case to make for the country: More energy independence, less dependence on Middle Eastern oil; in addition, much better for the environment; and some compelling public health reasons. The final point is that this renewable fuel standard will cause price spikes. I don't get this. The EIA, which is the independent research arm of the Department of Energy, released a report last week on what would be the price impact of this RFS standard which is before us in the Senate. Their analysis says that requiring renewables would add about one-half cent per gallon to the price of gasoline--a half a cent. This is not renewable fuels organizations. I am talking about the EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration, the independent research arm of the Department of Energy. That is what we get. Finally, I have heard arguments that farmers do not benefit from this renewable fuel standard. That is simply wrong. If we use corn, soybeans, and other commodities grown on farms as the feedstock for renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, then farmers benefit, rural America benefits. The farmers who benefit in Minnesota are not monopolies. I am not talking about ADM. I am talking about farmer co- ops. Companies owned by farmers are creating most of the new production in ethanol. I think Senator Dayton made this point earlier. Today, 61 ethanol facilities produce more than 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol, and 26 percent of these facilities are farmer owned. Additionally, there are 14 ethanol facilities under construction, of which 11 are farmer owned. So the only thing I can tell you is that this requirement of 5 billion gallons ethanol biodiesel, as you look to the future--I will say it right now. I do not want to offend anybody. I wish ADM did not have the control. Thank goodness it is actually less and less a percentage of locally owned market control, but they still have way too much. I am not in favor of oligopoly or monopoly. But there are a lot of farmer co-ops that are formed. This is very good for farm country, very good for family farmers, very good for economic development in our rural communities. Frankly, it is win-win-win. It is a win for energy independence, it is a win for public health, it is a win for the environment, it is a win for family farmers, and it is a win for Minnesota, the last point being the most important. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of this extremely important legislation, S. 2189, the Steel Industry Retiree Benefits Protection Act of 2002. This legislation is coming none too soon, for hardworking steelworker retirees who, through no fault of their own are facing the loss of health and death benefits, and for the industry itself that needs this relief in order to revitalize itself and remain competitive. In particular, the act would preserve the health and death benefits for the retirees of steel, iron ore, and coke companies facing consolidation or liquidation. The bill establishes a health benefits program for steel retirees of acquired or shuttered steel companies modeled on health plans available for Federal workers. Like its model, the new program will require retirees to pay reasonable monthly premiums, will provide coverage for prescription drugs, and will deliver medical care through preferred provider organizations. In addition to health coverage, the proposed legislation extends a $5,000 death benefit to the designated beneficiary of each enrolled retiree. The hard working families of the Iron Range of Minnesota are facing excruciatingly tough times. Their situation is truly desperate and they need our help. The taconite industry in which generations of workers have proudly labored has been ravaged by surges of semi-finished steel slab dumped in this country by our trading partners. Many have lost their jobs, just last year 1,400 workers were laid off when LTV Steel Mining closed its doors. Now, 10,000 former employees, their spouses and dependents face loss of health insurance and many are finding that they stand to lose a good portion of the pensions the company had promised. Last month, the HELP Committee held hearings on the need for legacy cost legislation both for retirees and for the industry. The testimony was riveting. The need compelling. My good friend, Jerry Fallos, president of Local 4108 of the United Steelworkers of America, testified at those hearings. The stories he had to tell were grim indeed. As Jerry said, the people of the Iron Range are used to hard times. They have weathered any number of challenges over the years. They are good people, proud, hard-working, the best you can find anywhere. They are survivors, and they will get through these difficult times as well. They have given much to their country, and now they need our help. I am determined to give them that help. The good people of the range have responded to their country in its times of needs. Over the years our Nation's economy flourished and our manufacturing industries boomed from the iron ore produced through the labors of steelworkers on the range. There is both a moral imperative to meeting this challenge as well as a business necessity in doing so. As a matter of fairness and economic justice, we must help the working families who gave their all to this industry and who, through no fault of their own, indeed because of the unfair practices of our trading partners, find themselves without jobs, health care or adequate pensions. In the last 2 years, 32 U.S. steel companies have filed for bankruptcy, and these companies represent nearly 30 percent of our domestic steel making capacity. These failures were not the fault of the workers at these companies. These failures resulted from unfair and predatory practices of our trading partners over an extended period. Equally as important, our domestic steel industry will simply not be able to revitalize itself and remain competitive while shouldering the massive legacy cost burdens that exist. With on average three retirees for every active employee, the industry faces virtually insurmountable barriers. Government assistance is essential and we will need the President's active support for legacy cost legislation if we are to prevail. Unfortunately, however, the President appears to have washed his hands of this problem. He claims to have done his part by providing section 201 relief to the industry. The issue of legacy costs, he says, for the sake of retirees and to permit industry consolidation, is someone else's problem. It is not, however, as simple as that. First, the jury is still out on whether the section 201 relief will in fact be that meaningful. According to recent accounts, there are over 1,000 exceptions to the President's section 201 decisions being considered. And, Secretary O'Neill is reported as saying that he suspects ``a significant proportion of them will be favorably decided.'' Moreover, the President's section 201 decision did nothing for the iron workers in Minnesota and Michigan. While the President imposed a fairly significant tariff on every other product category for which the International Trade Commission found injury, for steel slab he decided to impose ``tariff rate quotas.'' This brings us virtually no relief. Nearly 7 million tons of steel slab can continue to be dumped on our shores before any tariff is assessed. The injury will continue. Second, by ignoring the legacy cost issue, the President is walking away from the hard work that must be done to promote industry consolidation and re-vitalization, an objective this administration has been advancing from the start. We need serious legacy cost legislation and that is precisely what this bill represents. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House to support its passage. And I urge the President to take another look at this issue and work with us on a meaningful solution. The viability of our domestic steel industry, and our national security, are at stake here. We must act, and we must act soon.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to support H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. This bill includes important provisions that will enhance our overall security. As a member from a border State, I am especially supportive of provisions that improve our ability to provide security on the Northern border. H.R. 3525 authorizes the addition of 200 Immigration and Naturalization Service agents on the border, raises their pay and improves their retirement benefits, increases funding for their training, and authorizes money for them to improve and buy new technology. In Minnesota, some of our borders crossings, such as the crossing at Crane Lake, are staffed only part-time in the summer and even then are not staffed around the clock. Some parts of the border are staffed via telephone and video. For example, a person wanting to cross into the United States from Canada arrives at a border station, picks up a telephone or video-phone, and calls Border Patrol personnel located elsewhere to announce his arrival. We must address this security risk. We must address the vulnerability of our borders. The situation on our northern border demands immediate attention but simply putting new staff there is not enough. We must retain experienced officials and provide adequate training to identify and intercept would-be terrorists. By raising the pay grade of INS border personnel and improving their retirement benefits, we can ensure the retention of dedicated, experienced officials. By providing them adequate training and improving their ability to share information, we can prevent the entry of people who intend to do this country harm. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001 also has provisions to help us determine who is coming to the US before they arrive. It requires our consulates to transmit to INS officials electronic versions of the visas they issue so that information is available on the person prior to this arrival. It requires commercial flights and ships to provide manifests about each passenger prior to their arrival and it fills the gaps in the foreign student monitoring program to ensure we know who is coming to the United States to study at our universities before they get here. The more we can do to know who is coming to the United States before they actually arrive, the more secure we will be. I would like to take a moment to address the issue of civil liberties. Many of us have concerns about the changes taking place in regard to our Federal agencies sharing intelligence information. Today, more than ever, we must ensure that Federal law enforcement and other agencies have the ability to share information in a timely and effective manner. Nothing is more distressing than to think that the horrible events of September 11 may have been prevented through better interagency communication and organization. Yet, we must ensure that we vigorously monitor the effects structural changes now underway will have on our civil liberties. We must continue to monitor implementation of laws that question the fundamental balance between our security and liberty. We are doing that here today. The USA PATRIOT Act which we passed last October required the FBI to provide the State Department and INS with access to certain FBI databases. During the debate on that bill there were serious concerns over how to determine what information those agencies needed and how to protect that information. The bill before us requires the President to report to Congress on exactly what information the State Department and INS need, and to develop a comprehensive information-sharing plan with adequate privacy protections. I support this important provision and believe it is a good example of what needs to be done in the future. We must review, and improve legislation if necessary, to ensure protection of our fundamental freedoms. Colleagues, H.R. 3525 is a comprehensive bill which will strengthen the security of our borders, secure our visa entry system and enhance our ability to deter potential terrorists. It is another important step towards ensuring that we will never again witness the tragic event of September 11. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, when I first came to the Senate, my first year here in 1991, I think with Senator Lieberman and Senator Baucus, we started a filibuster against well drilling in ANWR. We succeeded. I am proud to be part of this effort as well. With all due respect, as I listen to some of my colleagues speak, they make the case we need to do this for our own national security; we need to do this for energy independence; we need to do it for our consumers. I think it has precisely the opposite effect. We are talking, altogether, the equivalent of what the United States consumes for 6 months. We are talking about oil that is not recoverable for another 10 years. And we are also talking about continuing to barrel down this oil path, this fossil fuel path, which is destructive to our environment. I am an environmental Senator from the State of Minnesota. I am concerned about global warming. In many ways, it is not our future. There is a different future. I come from a State, for example, a cold weather State at the other end of the pipeline. When we import barrels of oil or MCFs of natural gas, we export billions of dollars. Last year our energy bill was between $10 and $11 billion, but we have wind, biodiesel and ethanol, biomass electricity, saved energy, efficient energy use, and clean technology and small business. There is another direction that we can go. There is simply no reason to destroy a pristine wildlife refuge. There is no reason to do this environmental damage. One of the most moving meetings I ever had was with the Gwich'in people who live on the land. They made the appeal to me as a Senator out of their sense of environmental justice not to let this oil drilling go forward. This whole idea of energy independence for America, based upon another idea that we drill our way to independence, makes no sense. The United States of America has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but we use 25 percent of the world's supply. Saudi Arabia has 46 percent of the world's supply. On each point, I take my colleagues to task. I don't think we get more energy independence from this. I don't think we get lower prices for consumers. I don't think we do better for our environment. Frankly, this proposal represents not a big step forward but a big leap sideways, at best. On the jobs count, we can go back and forth and back and forth. Senator Kerry spoke; Senator Lieberman will speak. I know what the American Petroleum Institute has said about the jobs. I also know when we look at the Congressional Research Service, which we all look to as an independent research organization, we are talking about 60,000 jobs. If you move down another path where you are not so dependent on big oil and where you really look at renewable energy and saved energy, it is much more labor intensive, it is much more small business intensive. It creates many more jobs, and it is much more respectful of the environment. It keeps capital in our communities. That is the marriage we ought to make here on the floor of the Senate. We don't need to be doing the bidding of these big oil companies any longer. In part 2 of my presentation--I will stay under 20 minutes because there are many Senators who want to speak--I want to turn my attention to a portion of this amendment, the second-degree amendment, which purports to address the very serious problem of legacy costs of steelworkers or, in my State, taconite workers--that is to say, people who are retired and who are losing their health care benefits and their insurance benefits. We need to respond to this pain. I am a part of a real effort, a bipartisan effort with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Specter, to deal with legacy costs and to provide the help to people. This amendment on this bill is not authentic. It is not a real effort. In many ways I cannot think of an amendment I am more in opposition to because I think, frankly, it takes advantage of the pain of people and the hopes of people, it is an amendment that does not do the job. Why in the world are we now being told on the floor of the Senate the only way we can get relief to thousands of steelworker retirees around the Nation, where their health benefits and their life insurance is in jeopardy, is by tying it to what the oil industry wants to do in Alaska? I would like to know who made that linkage, and how anyone can argue that is the only way we can help steelworkers, retired steelworkers, or, for that matter, whether or not this, in fact, is even a real effort. Let me explain. The amendment does not deliver on the promise. Senators come out here and say the only way we can do this is from the royalty from the oil drilling. The Senator from Alaska says the legacy costs could be as high as $18 billion. I think the costs are about $14 billion over 10 years. Drilling in ANWR cannot produce those kinds of Federal revenues. This amendment dedicates much of the ANWR revenue to other purposes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan CBO, less than $1 billion of the revenue from ANWR is going to be available, in this amendment, to pay for steelworker legacy costs over 10 years. In other words, less than one-tenth of what the CBO says we need to cover these legacy costs for steelworkers, for the taconite workers who are the steelworkers in northern Minnesota--less than one-tenth of what we need is covered by this amendment. And that presupposes the House Republican leadership would sign onto it--they have not--and that this administration would sign on to it. They have not. So what we have here is a little bit of sleight of hand, where you get oil drilling for ANWR in the House bill--it is in there--and in the Senate bill. You get less than one-tenth of what we need for legacy costs. That is all you get. But you do not have any prior agreement from the House Republican leadership, and they take it out in conference. You do not have any prior agreement from the White House. They take it out in conference. I have to tell you, this is in many ways this amendment tells a horrible story. The steelworkers, hard-working people--the range has seen tremendous pain. LTV workers are out of work. This doesn't help people out of work now who are also losing their health care benefits. But for retirees, it says we can help you, but the only way is if you go along with what the oil industry wants, and if you look at the fine print, you find out this doesn't meet more than one-tenth of the cost. Where is the commitment from the White House? Where is the commitment from the Republican leadership? I tell you what, we will bring a bill out to the floor which will cover legacy costs. Then all Senators get a chance to vote on it. Then we can decide who wants to provide the help to people. By the way, it is also help to an industry that simply is not going to be able to compete without our doing so. I want to say, the second-degree amendment--it is so interesting. I have another piece here. There actually will be no oil produced on lease on the Coastal Plain which will be imported except to Israel. There is even language of oil for Israel. Oil for Israel, legacy costs for steelworkers--although not really. It is not real. But this seems to me to represent the old politics where you are trying everything to get the votes. You do not know what else to do so you start adding on all these other amendments, and you think you can buy off this group of people or buy off this vote or get this vote or get this vote. I am a Senator from Minnesota. I want to make the final distinction between a real effort and my position on ANWR so it is clear. I am opposed to the oil drilling. I led a filibuster when I first came here. I am opposed to it now. I will vote against oil drilling in ANWR, period. The second distinction, I am for a real effort to deal with the legacy costs of retired steelworkers. We have to. I am working with a bipartisan group of Senators who are equally committed. If we want to talk about what kind of revenue we are going to need, it is going to be, over 10 years, about $14 billion. There is less than $1 billion revenues from actually ANWR revenues to cover the legacy costs. That doesn't do the job. The steelworkers know this and they have said so. We don't need to be doing the bidding of the oil companies to help the steelworkers. We can do that on our own. We can do that right here on the floor of the Senate. When we bring the legislation out, it will be a tough fight. I do not know where the administration will be. Frankly, I think we need their commitment first because if we do not get their commitment first, we will never be able to provide it. It will be $14 billion over 10 years. We have to do it for the industry, for this industry to have a chance, an industry that is so important to the national security of our country. This is a national security question. But we also have to do it to make sure we get the help to people who have worked so hard all their lives. Where is the administration on this? I have not heard the administration commit itself to anywhere close to the amount of revenue we are going to need to cover legacy costs. The silence of the White House on this question is deafening. The silence on the part of the House Republican leadership is deafening. And the effort to have an amendment attached onto this amendment which purports to help taconite workers on the Iron Range but which really does not--as opposed to the real effort and the real fight which we will make--troubles me. There are too many people and too much pain. People are hurting. We should not be playing around with this. The second-degree amendment deserves to be defeated. The underlying amendment deserves to be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture, and I believe we will have a strong vote against cloture. I yield the floor. The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator from Texas will speak, and then the Senator from Minnesota follows; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be pleased to follow the Senator from Texas. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from Texas.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original co-sponsor of S. 2184, which provides for reissuance by the Department of Labor of a rule to prevent repetitive stress injuries. Too much time has passed with too little action on what is acknowledged to be the most critical workplace safety issue we face. After a year of inaction and delay, it is clear that this Administration is not serious about protecting workers from repetitive stress injury hazards in the workplace. Congress must now step in and require the Department to act. This is a problem that affects countless numbers of workers. Each year, roughly 1.8 million workers suffer repetitive stress injuries on the job. That translates to 5000 injured workers a day, one worker injured every 18 seconds. Women suffer disproportionately from repetitive stress injuries. In particular, 67 percent of reported carpal tunnel cases and 61 percent of tendonitis cases are women, even though women comprise only 46 percent of the work force and account for only 33 percent of total workplace injuries. Notwithstanding the gravity of the problem, this Administration and its Republican allies in Congress saw fit to overturn the ten years of effort that went into developing an OSHA standard for protecting workers from repetitive stress injury hazards in the workplace. In its place, Secretary of Labor Chao and President Bush promised a ``comprehensive plan'' to combat this serious workplace safety issue. Yet after months of delays and inaction, what the Department of Labor has now produced is a sham. It's emphasis on voluntariness, toothless enforcement, and unnecessary and duplicative research in my view turns the clock back to before the first Bush Administration when Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin initiated the repetitive stress injury rulemaking proceeding. Voluntary approaches alone have not protected workers from repetitive stress injuries. OSHA itself reports that only 16 percent of employers in general industry have put in place ergonomic programs to reduce hazards. Each year 1.8 million workers suffer repetitive stress injuries and recent Bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that injury numbers and rates are increasing, particularly in high risk industries and occupations. We have been as patient as possible with this Administration, but it is clear that they have no intention of addressing this problem in a serious manner. Time is running out for the millions of workers at risk of repetitive stress injury. Congress must act now. And we must act decisively. The bill we introduce today is a balanced approach to fashioning a repetitive stress injury standard that will benefit all workers. In particular it requires the Department of Labor to issue, within two years, a standard for addressing work-related repetitive stress injuries and workplace ergonomic hazards. The bill requires the new standard to describe in clear terms when an employer is required to take action, what actions the employer must take, and when an employer is in compliance with the standard. Under the bill's terms the new standard must emphasize prevention and cover workers at risk only where measures exist to control the hazards that are both economically and technologically feasible. The standard must be based on the best available evidence and employer experience with effective practices. Finally, the bill clarifies that the new rule cannot expand the application of state workers' compensation laws, it requires the Department of Labor to issue information and training materials, and provides the Department with authority and flexibility to issue an appropriate standard. In sum, this bill represents a balanced and comprehensive approach to dealing with the most serious workplace safety issue we face. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. Action on the issue of repetitive stress injury is long overdue.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original co-sponsor of S. 2184, which provides for reissuance by the Department of Labor of a rule to prevent repetitive stress injuries. Too much time has passed with too little action on what is acknowledged to be the most critical workplace safety issue we face. After a year of inaction and delay, it is clear that this Administration is not serious about protecting workers from repetitive stress injury hazards in the workplace. Congress must now step in and require the Department to act. This is a problem that affects countless numbers of workers. Each year, roughly 1.8 million workers suffer repetitive stress injuries on the job. That translates to 5000 injured workers a day, one worker injured every 18 seconds. Women suffer disproportionately from repetitive stress injuries. In particular, 67 percent of reported carpal tunnel cases and 61 percent of tendonitis cases are women, even though women comprise only 46 percent of the work force and account for only 33 percent of total workplace injuries. Notwithstanding the gravity of the problem, this Administration and its Republican allies in Congress saw fit to overturn the ten years of effort that went into developing an OSHA standard for protecting workers from repetitive stress injury hazards in the workplace. In its place, Secretary of Labor Chao and President Bush promised a ``comprehensive plan'' to combat this serious workplace safety issue. Yet after months of delays and inaction, what the Department of Labor has now produced is a sham. It's emphasis on voluntariness, toothless enforcement, and unnecessary and duplicative research in my view turns the clock back to before the first Bush Administration when Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin initiated the repetitive stress injury rulemaking proceeding. Voluntary approaches alone have not protected workers from repetitive stress injuries. OSHA itself reports that only 16 percent of employers in general industry have put in place ergonomic programs to reduce hazards. Each year 1.8 million workers suffer repetitive stress injuries and recent Bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that injury numbers and rates are increasing, particularly in high risk industries and occupations. We have been as patient as possible with this Administration, but it is clear that they have no intention of addressing this problem in a serious manner. Time is running out for the millions of workers at risk of repetitive stress injury. Congress must act now. And we must act decisively. The bill we introduce today is a balanced approach to fashioning a repetitive stress injury standard that will benefit all workers. In particular it requires the Department of Labor to issue, within two years, a standard for addressing work-related repetitive stress injuries and workplace ergonomic hazards. The bill requires the new standard to describe in clear terms when an employer is required to take action, what actions the employer must take, and when an employer is in compliance with the standard. Under the bill's terms the new standard must emphasize prevention and cover workers at risk only where measures exist to control the hazards that are both economically and technologically feasible. The standard must be based on the best available evidence and employer experience with effective practices. Finally, the bill clarifies that the new rule cannot expand the application of state workers' compensation laws, it requires the Department of Labor to issue information and training materials, and provides the Department with authority and flexibility to issue an appropriate standard. In sum, this bill represents a balanced and comprehensive approach to dealing with the most serious workplace safety issue we face. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. Action on the issue of repetitive stress injury is long overdue.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent an intern in my office, Tanya Balsky, be allowed privileges on the floor for the day.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with a suicide bomber killing eight innocent Israeli civilians and wounding more than a dozen in Haifa today, and Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers locked in battle in the Jenin refugee camp, the Middle East is under an intolerable siege of violence. The horrific practice of targeting innocent civilians must end. Even in this time of horrendous violence we cannot lose hope. I spoke at Temple Israel back in Minnesota on Sunday. I was trying to figure out what to say. I remembered the story of an Israeli man murdered at a Seder meal. ``Murdered'' is the right word. An organ of his was given to save the life of a Palestinian woman. His children said that he would have been proud. There is hope. We cannot lose hope, for the sake of both the Israeli and the Palestinian children. We have to continue to seek a pathway to peace. President Bush said this in a number of statements. Last week President Bush made the right decision to send Secretary Powell to seek a cease-fire and progress toward a political settlement. Over and over again I was saying to Tony Zinni, for some time: We should be there. I think this was the right decision. We can go back and forth about whether it should have been done earlier, but I support the President. I think the President is pursuing a courageous approach which seeks both to meet the critical need of the Israeli people to be free from terrorism and violence and acknowledges the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state. Even in this horrific time we must not lose sight of what is the ultimate goal: Israel and a new Palestinian state living side by side, in peace, with secure borders. Secretary Powell is now in Madrid and he will return to the region later today. On Friday he will arrive in Jerusalem. He has the unenviable task of seeking to persuade leaders in the Middle East to take very painful but very necessary steps. He has been traveling to Arab capitals to persuade Arab leaders to condemn Palestinian suicide bombings and other acts of violence. This was a step they inexcusably refused to take last month in Beirut. Palestinian leaders will only be able to establish their credibility as legitimate diplomatic partners by condemning violence and doing all in their power to combat it. Secretary Powell is also simultaneously pressing Prime Minister Sharon to immediately withdraw his military from cities in the West Bank and to link a political solution to a cease-fire. This is all so complicated and hard. Further, I also believe he will and should urge the Prime Minister to respect the dignity and human rights of ordinary, innocent Palestinian civilians, and to address the emerging humanitarian crisis in the West Bank. Secretary Powell's mission involves great risk, and he himself has said he is unsure he will return to Washington with a cease-fire in hand. This process is not going to be easy and it is not going to be fast. In fact, it will require enormous patience and work by all parties, including a sustained effort by the Bush administration for many months, if not years. I am grateful for Secretary Powell's efforts. I said to Dick Armitage, in a number of conversations last week, that I support this effort, and I pray for the success of his mission and for a prompt end to the violence which has wracked this region and threatens its future, and I am not at all sure that I am being melodramatic when I say perhaps the future of the world. I apologize to my colleague from New Mexico. I now will speak to the amendment, but I really believe--as a Senator, as a first-generation American, as the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution from Ukraine--that it was important to speak on this matter. I think when we speak, you are not going to hear any acrimonious debate. There are different ideas about what needs to be done. It is not as if we can take what is happening in the Middle East and put it in parentheses. I also will tell you that I was impressed--I hope people do not mind my saying this--at Israel Temple. I was relieved there was very little shrillness. People are feeling tremendous anguish and pain and are wanting to come together as a community. Recently, I met with an Israeli man and a Palestinian father--two fathers, both of whom lost children. They came here, and I want them to come back. Rabbi Sapperstein called the office and said: I would like for you to meet with them. They have formed a parent organization-- parents who have lost their loved ones and who are saying we have to somehow figure out how to move from where we are to some kind of a framework for peace. How wide of a river of blood has to be spilled before we do that? I believe as long as there are ``leaders'' like that, there is hope.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to speak on the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to first devote 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Brian Baenig works for me. He does great work for me. He is on the floor. I might not get a chance to speak again. Brian is working up some great talking points for me. I could be more specific. I apologize. I wish to spell out my position on this amendment. First of all, I said to the Senator from New Mexico before that I would try not to get into too much of the sort of flowery oratory where it seems as if it is insincere. I think he is probably one of the best Members of the Senate and is very substantive. He rarely speaks without a whole lot of knowledge. But I don't agree with him about an amendment that was agreed to by a quick unanimous consent basically repealing PUHCA. I think it was a big mistake. I would like to see at least FERC beef it up so we make sure we have some protection against more mergers, vis-a-vis more acquisitions, and more monopoly power. I don't wish to see just a few companies dominating these markets. I think it is very much to the detriment of ordinary citizens and consumers. The problem with the Craig amendment is--and the reason I am not going to support it, and I will come back with an amendment to try to deal with where I think we still have some gap. I know that there are some provisions in the bill that try to maintain the consumer protection. But with the PUHCA repeal, I think we have some big gaps. I would like to come back with an amendment to fill some of those. But I can't support this amendment. This amendment basically repeals the whole section of the bill. Albeit, I would rather have 20 percent, but somewhere around 10 percent or 8.5 percent on a renewable portfolio for electricity is really important. That is very important for my State of Minnesota. I was in East Grand Forks the other day. You should never do these cafe visits--I am being facetious--because there is no control. People show up. There might be television. You never know what people are going to say to you. You might not like what they say. That is probably why it is the best place to be. It is certainly not controllable. This one farmer wanted to debate me about ANWR: We should be drilling for oil. I said: We are in Minnesota. What are you talking about oil for? We are not oil rich. We don't produce any oil. As a matter of fact, we are a cold-weather State. When we import oil and natural gas, we export our dollars. We export over $10 billion a year. But we are rich in wind. I was at Dan Jewels' Woodstock wind farm. It is incredible. There is so much excitement in farm country and rural Minnesota about wind, about biomass, about electricity, about renewable fuels, that portfolio about saving energy, efficient energy use, clean technology, small businesses, more jobs; keep capital in communities and be respectful of the environment; don't keep barreling down the same old fossil fuel path; we don't need more global warming. I come from a State where we love the outdoors. We don't need more warnings, if you are a woman expecting a child, about being very careful when eating walleye--a great eating fish, by the way--from our lakes; or, if you have small children, you should be careful. It is outrageous--air toxins, mercury poisons, acid rain. We don't need more of it. There is a baby step in the bill. Senator Bingaman has done a masterful job of trying to deal with lots of different viewpoints and politics. One person's solution is another person's horror. People just have different views. But for my part, I don't want to completely eliminate this renewable portfolio for electricity. It is too important for my State. I can't vote for this amendment. I think it would be a mistake. I hope it will be defeated. I hope we can do something about figuring out perhaps just some stronger consumer provision in relation to the PUHCA repeal. I will finish by saying we will come back to this. We will come back to this again if there is an amendment out here for oil drilling in ANWR. It will be the same issue. I don't even think the debate is whether or not it is only 6 months of oil or whether or not it is not recoverable for 10 years. I know all of those statistics. I think it is simply a matter of another issue, which is, what path we want to go down. I think we have a different path now before us, a different future. Renewables is part of it. I don't want to repeal this whole section because it is too darned important to my State of Minnesota. I am not just being Mr. Politician. I also happen to think it is too important for our country. Every time somebody comes to the floor and says, my God, the Middle East; now we should drill for oil in ANWR, or do this or that, it is as if we have no other alternative. We have a lot of alternatives. Probably about 80 percent of the people in the country agree. I think the big problem is some of the oil producer interests still have lots of power. I do not think we should eliminate the whole section. I think the Craig amendment is mistaken for that reason. I think my colleague from Idaho is right to address the problems with PUHCA but wrong to also eliminate some very good work, albeit a small start that Senator Bingaman and others have done, and of which I am very proud. There are two things which are important for me: Renewable portfolio electricity, and also the renewable fuels part, which I think for all of us is a win-win. I will support the chairman of the Energy Committee in opposition to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dayton in this effort. I think there are some other Senators who also want to join in the debate. There are others who have some ideas about additional consumer protection provisions, and we will see later on in the debate whether or not we further modify the amendment. I say to the Presiding Officer this amendment basically would strengthen the underlying merger review standard that FERC would undertake, and I say with a smile to the Presiding Officer that basically this is all about PUHCA. I mean, who the heck knows what PUHCA means? Public Utility Holding Company Act. This is legislation that was actually in this bill and was basically repealed, although the chair of the committee, Senator Bingaman has tried mightily to kind of work out a compromise arrangement to try to provide some protection. In Minnesota, the little people, the little interests, the smaller businesses, the smaller companies, they are really worried about this because we see the way in which we have had this wave of mergers. In the last 3 years, there have been 30 major utility mergers and acquisitions. Everybody is really worried. It is a little bit like the packers and what we were trying to do to make sure our independent livestock producers had some honest to goodness free enterprise, real competition. It is kind of analogous because a lot of the smaller companies and smaller businesses, much less a lot of rural citizens, are just real worried that without the protection we had with PUHCA on these mergers, albeit it was not ever really enforced like it should have been, that we are going to see a wave of more mergers, which are not always bad. I want to get to that in a moment. That could very well be to the detriment of consumers and some of the smaller companies that are driven out of existence. I do not know whether or not we can win on this amendment. I have no idea, but I will say this, and I make this prediction tonight in this Chamber: This decade there is going to be a lot of discussion and debate and more focus on the whole problem of concentration of economic power in our economy. It is going to go in that direction. It is everywhere. The Telecommunications Act in 1996 was supposed to be great for everybody. Cable rates were supposed to go down. They have not. It was supposed to lead to all kinds of positive benefits. One of the things that has happened is all of these local radio stations have been driven out of existence, and we have a few large conglomerates that are now controlling the flow of information in a representative democracy. The same thing with banks, with the health insurance industry, with the food industry and agriculture, and with energy companies and utility companies. There comes a point in time where I think people in coffee shops in Minnesota are saying: Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him? Let us talk about putting some free enterprise back into the free enterprise system. Let's have some protection for ordinary citizens. That is what this amendment is about. What this amendment does is simply apply the same merger review standard under the Public Utility Holding Company Act to the FERC review of electricity mergers. That is what we are worried about. That is why I think this bill is a step backwards. We have taken away this important review standard. The electric utility industry is undergoing rapid consolidation. Again, we are not speaking to a small issue. In the past 3 years, 30 major utility mergers and acquisitions have taken place. Not all of these mergers are inherently bad. Some should not be prevented. Some of the mergers can produce efficiencies, economies of scale, cost savings, and more. However, a merger can also reduce competition, increase costs, and frustrate regulatory oversight. Federal merger review policy should distinguish between those mergers that promote the public interest and those mergers that do not. That is what we are saying. I think the ordinary people--which I don't mean in a pejorative sense but in a positive way--ordinary citizens have a right to make sure their interests as consumers are protected. This amendment improves the base language of the bill by doing a few things: One, requiring that proposed mergers promote the public interest in order to secure Federal regulatory approval. That is the threshold. If you are going to do a merger, it could be it is good, but at least it ought to be a standard that you are advancing the public interest. Two, spelling out specific standards for assessing the impact on the public interest. In other words, we spell that out in this amendment, including what will be the effect of this merger on competition, what is going to be its effect on operational efficiency, what is its effect on regulatory oversight. Three, expanding that all mergers between electric and gas utilities are reviewed. Given, by the way, the rather unpleasant experience we all had last year with natural gas prices, there is a real need to look at the natural gas utilities. That is part of what this amendment is about. Finally, preventing utilities from skirting Federal review by using partnerships or other corporate forms to avoid classification as a merger. Colleagues, this amendment does not impose new regulatory requirements on the proposed utility mergers. Rather, the standards contained in this amendment mirror those that have been in PUHCA, which the bill would repeal. While the standards are comparable, the amendment actually provides greater flexibility than under PUHCA. We are just trying to restore some consumer protection. PUHCA requires that utilities be physically integrated in order to merge. The amendment waives that requirement. PUHCA prevents the merger of multistate electric and gas utilities. The amendment waives that requirement. But we do provide for FERC review of such mergers. Colleagues, I said on the Craig amendment, I think they were right in their concern about the repeal of PUHCA. The amendment was wrong because it basically also eliminated a section of the bill, which was the renewable portfolio for electricity, which, as the Presiding Officer knows, is important to our State--very important. From my point of view as a Senator from Minnesota, I did not vote for that amendment. However, I believe the part of the Craig amendment that was right on target was that we basically repeal PUHCA. Mr. Bingaman, the Senator from New Mexico, has put some good language in here and has taken some positive steps. But, again, the key point is we have a threshold which is the same threshold we have had with PUHCA which goes back to the 1920s or 1930s. If Senators think we do not need it anymore because there are no mergers or acquisitions, quite to the contrary; we ought not be giving up on the consumer protection. At the very minimum, we should have the language that requires that the proposed mergers promote the public interest. Then we get FERC approval. At the very minimum, we ought to do that. Let's make sure they promote competition, make sure they are good for consumers, make sure they add to economic efficiency. Right now in this legislation, I am sad to say, we do not have that standard. We are going to make a huge mistake if we do not have a stronger consumer protection standard and a stronger competition standard. That is what this amendment is about. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Senator Dayton talked about the men's hockey team, the University of Minnesota, the Gophers winning the NCAA championship which, as my colleague said, I think was the first time in 23 years; then the University of Minnesota Duluth, second straight year; and then the University of Minnesota wrestling team also won the NCAA championship for the second straight year as well. Senator Dayton and I will have a chance to send those resolutions back home. We want to congratulate everybody. I think everybody in Minnesota is very proud of these three teams. In one winter, there were three NCAA championships: men's hockey, women's hockey, and wrestling. I say to Senator Dayton, I actually do have a 5-hour speech I want to give about the importance of wrestling, but I will not do it tonight.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Boxer and Feinstein to submit a resolution calling for protection and assistance for Afghan refugees, as they struggle to find their way home and rebuild their lives amid so much uncertainty. Today more than 3.5 million Afghan citizens are refugees in Pakistan and Iran, having been displaced by decades of civil war and conflict. Since the overthrow of the Taliban, thousands have continued to flee Afghanistan, including ethnic Pashtuns escaping persecution in the North. Many have been subjected to physical violence, harassment, extortion, and arbitrary detention because of their undocumented status. Unfortunately, many also now live under the threat of repatriation to Afghanistan against their will. In clear violation of international legal norms, authorities in Pakistan and Iran have forcibly returned some Afghans and have stated a desire to begin a large scale repatriation effort of Afghan refugees, despite the clear dangers many of them would face in Afghanistan. Like most observers, I believe that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, is well-prepared for a massive repatriation of refugees to Afghanistan this spring and also to assist large numbers of internally displaced Afghans return to their farms and homes. That said, it is imperative that UNHCR and other U.N. agencies, donors, and the international security force work closely together to make the repatriation program as successful as possible. According to UNHCR, each day, more and more Afghans come forward to participate in the voluntary return programs. Since the start of the joint Afghan Government and UNHCR assisted return program on March 1, more than 200,000 Afghans have repatriated from Pakistan. However, these efforts have been and likely will continue to be hampered by a number of factors. The peaceful transition to normalcy requires a certain set of conditions for success. The main factors influencing the number of Afghan refugees and displaced who return home are security, economic opportunity, and economic ties in countries of asylum. As our G.I.'s in Afghanistan know all too well, many area in Afghanistan are still very dangerous. Military operations will undoubtedly continue in southeastern Afghanistan and elsewhere. In other areas, renewed strife among bandits, warlords and the government are likely to continue to break out. Accordingly, security is perhaps the greatest challenge for the young Afghan nation, as well as for those charged with the task of relief and repatriation. While these fears make return to Afghanistan a daunting prospect, Afghan refugees are also experiencing increasingly hostile treatment in Iran and Pakistan and pressure to leave. Mistreatment at the hands of Pakistani or Iranian law enforcement authorities and violence in refugee camps are just some of the problems Afghan refugees face on a daily basis. Refugees interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Pakistan described the human toll caused by that government's treatment of the refugee population: With borders closed, most refugees had to resort to dangerous and unofficial routes into Pakistan. Refugees were beaten at unofficial checkpoints when they could not afford to pay extortionate bribes. At official crossing points, families were beaten back, or languished in squalor without food, water or latrines, hoping to be let in. Once inside Pakistan, refugees were subjected to harassment and detention, while others endured beatings by Pakistani police when lining up for food in camps. According to Human Rights Watch, Iran also has been an egregious offender of international humanitarian law. Its border closure policies run directly contrary to international standards, most fundamentally because they interfere with the right to seek asylum. By closing its borders, conducting systematic and large scale push-backs, and by insisting on the establishment of camps for displaced persons inside Afghanistan, the Government of Iran has violated its obligations under numerous international conventions. Today, I join with human rights and refugee organizations to strongly urge the governments of Pakistan and Iran to identify those refugees who continue to be in need of protection, to provide them with documentation and legal status, and to end persistent abuses of the rights of refugees in both countries. The governments of Pakistan and Iran as well as UNHCR must ensure that Afghan refugees have access to full and objective information about conditions inside Afghanistan before deciding whether or not to return. Moreover, refugees should not be forced to return prematurely because of insecurity or lack of assistance in neighboring countries. Economic opportunity also will determine whether or not refugees and internally displaced persons, IDPs, return to their homes or villages. Jobs and economic opportunities for Afghans wishing to return home are sparse. In addition, many long-term Afghan refugees are earning a livelihood in their countries of asylum and their willingness to return home has not yet been determined. Despite these uncertainties, most refugees surveyed want to go home. A successful return program also will require long-term economic development assistance to help returnees and their communities become economically self-sufficient. Many of the returnees will be going back to the poorest, drought-impacted, and strife-ridden areas of Afghanistan. Longer-term development aid should be factored into the services available for returnees and their communities from the outset to help ensure that they become economically self-sufficient and self- sustaining. I will continue to call on the United States and other donor governments to provide adequate funding to the Afghan Interim Authority's Ministry for the Return of Refugees, and for the voluntary return of refugees under conditions of safety and with full respect for their human rights. The key to success in any repatriation is voluntariness. Iran and Pakistan must respect this mandate. While the governments of Pakistan, Iran, and others have consistently allowed Afghan refugees to remain in those countries despite the enormous economic and social costs this involves, and Pakistan must be commended for its extraordinary efforts in the campaign against terrorism over the last 6 months, Iran and Pakistan should not now turn their backs on these vulnerable people. They must fully cooperate with the UNHCR in providing protection to Afghan refugees. They must allow open access to refugees by nongovernmental organizations and international agencies offering humanitarian assistance. They must also immediately cease any forcible return of Afghan refugees and take action to end their harassment, detention, and other mistreatment. To address these concerns, a significant refugee repatriation agreement was signed last week in Geneva by the governments of Iran, Afghanistan and the UNHCR. I am confident that the Tripartite Agreement, which lays down the main legal and operational framework for the voluntary return of Afghan refugees in Iran, will address many of these concerns. I ask that the Senate show unanimous support for Afghanistan in its time of greatest need. This resolution highlights the uncertain and dangerous situation faced by Afghan refugees and calls upon the President to urge countries in the region to abide by well-established norms of international refugee and humanitarian law. A vote for this resolution is a vote for the millions of displaced Afghans, and a test case of our willingness to secure Afghanistan's peace.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would bar multinational corporations from avoiding millions of dollars in taxes through the use of shell corporations in foreign tax havens. On February 18 the New York Times in an article entitled ``U.S. Corporations Are Using Bermuda to Slash Tax Bills,'' reported that a number of prominent U.S. corporations, using creative paperwork, have transformed themselves into Bermuda corporations purely to avoid paying their share of U.S. taxes. These new Bermuda entities are shell corporations. They have no staff, no offices and no real business activity in Bermuda. They exist for the purpose of shielding income from the IRS. How does the ``Bermuda Triangle'' tax loophole work? U.S. companies, referred to as ``domestic corporations,'' pay U.S. taxes on their worldwide income, whether that income is earned in the United States or abroad. Foreign corporations pay U.S. taxes only on income earned in the United States. Through the use of a process called corporate inversion, a domestic company can be ``acquired'' by a shell corporation chartered in a foreign county with low or no corporate taxes, Bermuda for example. Under such an arrangement, the shareholders of the new foreign parent are the same as the shareholders of the old U.S. company. This maneuver requires little more than filing of the proper paperwork in the new ``home'' country and payment of a registration fee. The new foreign parent corporation need not have any offices or any staff, and they usually don't. United States tax law contains many provisions designed to expose such creative accounting and to require U.S. companies that are foreign in name only to pay the same taxes as other domestic corporations. Corporate inversions are designed to exploit a specific loophole in current law so that the company is treated as foreign for tax purposes, and therefore pays no U.S. taxes on its foreign income. My bill closes this loophole in a way that is narrowly tailored to capture corporate inversion transactions. In the case of inversion ``stock swaps'' the bill directs the IRS to look at the ownership of the new company to assess whether it is a domestic firm. 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. Of course when some companies don't pay their fair share, the rest of American taxpayers 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. When we have our debate over budget priorities here in the Senate, we need to decide whether we are going to go after tax scofflaws or instead put these resources into fair tax relief, public investment, or saving social security. That's what this legislation is all about. I hope colleagues will take a close look and be able to support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would bar multinational corporations from avoiding millions of dollars in taxes through the use of shell corporations in foreign tax havens. On February 18 the New York Times in an article entitled ``U.S. Corporations Are Using Bermuda to Slash Tax Bills,'' reported that a number of prominent U.S. corporations, using creative paperwork, have transformed themselves into Bermuda corporations purely to avoid paying their share of U.S. taxes. These new Bermuda entities are shell corporations. They have no staff, no offices and no real business activity in Bermuda. They exist for the purpose of shielding income from the IRS. How does the ``Bermuda Triangle'' tax loophole work? U.S. companies, referred to as ``domestic corporations,'' pay U.S. taxes on their worldwide income, whether that income is earned in the United States or abroad. Foreign corporations pay U.S. taxes only on income earned in the United States. Through the use of a process called corporate inversion, a domestic company can be ``acquired'' by a shell corporation chartered in a foreign county with low or no corporate taxes, Bermuda for example. Under such an arrangement, the shareholders of the new foreign parent are the same as the shareholders of the old U.S. company. This maneuver requires little more than filing of the proper paperwork in the new ``home'' country and payment of a registration fee. The new foreign parent corporation need not have any offices or any staff, and they usually don't. United States tax law contains many provisions designed to expose such creative accounting and to require U.S. companies that are foreign in name only to pay the same taxes as other domestic corporations. Corporate inversions are designed to exploit a specific loophole in current law so that the company is treated as foreign for tax purposes, and therefore pays no U.S. taxes on its foreign income. My bill closes this loophole in a way that is narrowly tailored to capture corporate inversion transactions. In the case of inversion ``stock swaps'' the bill directs the IRS to look at the ownership of the new company to assess whether it is a domestic firm. 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. Of course when some companies don't pay their fair share, the rest of American taxpayers 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. When we have our debate over budget priorities here in the Senate, we need to decide whether we are going to go after tax scofflaws or instead put these resources into fair tax relief, public investment, or saving social security. That's what this legislation is all about. I hope colleagues will take a close look and be able to support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I wish to speak today about the campaign finance reform bill. This is a step in the right direction, for sure. When this bill came to the floor in 1995, I was an original cosponsor with Senator Thompson. First of all, there are a couple of ways in which it is weaker than before. One of the ways has to do with raising the individual spending limits to $2,000. It is interesting that during the last election 4 citizens out of every 10,000 Americans made contributions greater than $200. Only 232,000 Americans gave contributions of $1,000 or more. That was one- ninth of 1 percent of the voting-age population. By bumping the spending limits up, I think we just simply further maximize the leverage and the influence, and, frankly, the power of the wealthiest citizens in the country. I regret that. I oppose it. But it is part of the bill. There was an amendment I had in the bill which would have changed a word or two in the Federal Election Commission Code that would have allowed States to voluntarily move toward a public system, a system of public financing, or partial public financing--a kind of clean money/ clean election effort. I think we received 36 votes for that amendment. I would like to have seen the sponsors of the legislation support it because I think we could have passed it. I think it would have strengthened the bill. Frankly, I think you would have a lot of energy back in the States-- in the States of Minnesota and Nebraska--where people could say: Listen, if we in our State want to have some kind of public or partial- public financing, it would have to be an agreed upon spending limit applied to Federal races, let us do it. I think it would have been wonderful to see the energy back at the State level and see people have more of a chance to organize. I dearly would have liked to have seen that amendment agreed to. However, I think we need to have some victories. I think that passing this legislation--I thank both Senators McCain and Feingold for their effort--will whet people's appetite for more. I think we need victories in the reform area. That is why I support this legislation far more than any other reason. I don't like to increase spending limits. I would like to have seen limits on public financing if States wanted to move forward with that. I certainly will be introducing that bill separately. I certainly will have another vote on that. I think we can get to 50 votes. Ultimately, I would like to see a system of clean money/clean elections. But I believe overall, even with some misgivings, that their piece of legislation represents a huge step forward. Let me point out again by way of analysis that the problem is 80 percent of the money is hard money. No one should have any illusion that if we pass this legislation we are getting big money out of politics. This legislation is the first step. It is not the last step. It is important that we have a victory. It is important that people in the country can say now we can do more. I hope that will be the direction in which we go. I want to, however, talk to what I think is the strength of this bill, which has to do with the prohibition on soft money, getting unaccounted for money contributions--$200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 or whatever--out of politics. Of course, what the political parties said, at least initially what some people said is we can't give up all of that soft money; it will weaken political parties. I don't think so. I think it would be wonderful to see both political parties have to get back to more rational politics. I think it would be wonderful to see both political parties have to rely on smaller contributions. I think it would be wonderful to see both political parties having to be more connected to the ordinary citizens, which I mean in a positive way, not in a pejorative sense. The most controversial provision of this legislation was an amendment I submitted on the floor of the Senate. I would like to speak about this amendment. This was one of the toughest fights I have had in the Senate. When you see an editorial in the New York Times in which you are characterized as not being a reformer, and having offered an antireform amendment, it is hard to take because, for me, ever since I have been in the Senate, after the 1990 election, reform has been at the top of my agenda. I do not know how many amendments I have brought to the floor dealing with this whole question of how you get money out of politics. I do not know how many battles I have fought. I cannot recount them all. As I said, I was pleased to be one of original two cosponsors of this legislation. But when this bill came to the floor of the Senate, my concern was that we would have a prohibition of the soft money going to the political parties and to corporations and unions but there would be no prohibition of soft money going to all kinds of other groups and organizations that would proliferate and would basically raise soft money and go on television with these sham issue ads, in which case I was not even sure the legislation would be a step forward. If we had less of this money going to the parties but more of it going to all kinds of independent groups and organizations--``Americans For This'' and ``Americans For That''--that could raise $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 at a crack and put it into these sham issue ads, I do not think we would be any better off. So the amendment I offered to this bill said we would also have the same prohibition on soft money applied to all of these independent groups that applied to all of these sham ads. This is not to say that any organization cannot raise money and put on ads 60 days before an election. But what we do say is, you have to abide by the same spending limits as everybody else. That was the amendment. I say to colleagues in this Senate Chamber, I do not think I have ever done this more than once in the last 11\1/2\ years--I hope not because it will come off a little self-serving--but I am really proud of that amendment, and I feel vindicated because--do you what want to know something?--in the House of Representatives, there were many Members who wanted to make sure we did not create this huge loophole, who wanted to make sure the prohibition of soft money would apply to these sham issue ads as well. That was part of the reason they supported this legislation. So by having the same feature, the same provision in both bills, we did not have to make this change in the House It kept this bill out of a conference committee. I remind my colleagues of that. We did not have to go to conference committee. We were able to get the necessary number of votes in the House of Representatives. The bill came back to the Senate, and we are where we are. This is one of the two major provisions of this campaign finance reform bill. I point out to Senators, on both sides of the aisle, in my view, this is one of the critical features because, again, I am pleased to go after the soft money. I wish we did not raise the hard money contributions. I still think we have a lot of work to go after big money in politics. But if we were going to have a prohibition on the soft money to the parties, and to the unions and corporations, and we were not going to be doing anything about all kinds of other groups and organizations that could then raise all this money, in huge sums, and then put on these sham issue ads, then we would not have been any better off. We would have had a huge loophole. I am proud of the fact that I brought that amendment to the floor. I regret how tough a fight it was, although I do not mind tough fights. It was a victory. I certainly regret some of the characterization of that amendment. I would remind any number of different newspapers, as a matter of fact, subsequent to that battle in the Senate, many papers have now editorialized for that amendment. It is one of the critical provisions in the bill. It made it possible for us to pass it in the House because many Representatives were saying: Wait a minute, if you have this loophole, we are going to weaken the parties and we are going to enhance the strength of all these different interest groups everywhere. So it made it possible to pass it in the House. It meant that the House bill and the Senate bill--because certainly Congressmen Meehan and Shays wanted this feature in the bill--were in identical form. It meant we did not have to go to conference committee. It meant we got the bill before us. And it means we are going to pass the bill before us today. So I am really proud of that work. For me, this has been 11 years of fighting over this issue. I do not think there is anything more important we can do than to pass this legislation. I am sure we will get cloture, if we have a cloture vote. I am sure this bill will pass by the end of the day. I am sure this bill will be a significant reform and a significant step forward. It will not be a great leap sideways. I am sure people in the country will feel better about the fact we have passed some reform legislation. I am also sure no one in Minnesota and no one in the United States of America should believe we have now created a level playing field, where you do not have to be a millionaire to run, where you do not have to depend upon big money to win, where you get a lot of the big money out of politics and you get more ordinary citizens back into politics. We are not there yet. This bill does not get us there. But do you know what? It is a step forward. It is a victory for the citizens in the country. I think it is a victory for good government. It is not Heaven on Earth, but it makes the political Earth a little better on Earth. I am very pleased we are finally at this point. For me, there have been many years of struggle on this question. And I will finish where I started, and I will say this. I apologize, in a kind of a self- aggrandizing way--I am fiercely proud of the fact that this controversial provision and amendment was an amendment I brought to the Senate. We won it in a tough fight. There was plenty of attack over it. We needed to plug that loophole. We needed to make sure the soft money did not flow to all these different interest groups that would basically then take over all the campaigns. I am honored to be a part of this reform bill. I yield the floor.