Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to send my modified amendment to the desk. Basically what this amendment does, Madam President, is it makes crystal clear the bonus payments will go to States--first of all, they have to meet the deadline. I don't want colleagues to think I am giving States any way of not meeting the deadlines. Second, the other requirement is that the bonus goes to States that develop assessments that most successfully assess the range and depth of student knowledge and proficiency in meeting State performance standards in each academic subject on which the States are required to conduct their assessments. There will be a peer review. I send my modified amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I think the Senator from Massachusetts has said it well. I will have more to say about this overall education bill later on, but this is all in the spirit of trying to improve this bill. I hope there will be a lot of support for this amendment. So far no one has come out on the floor of the Senate to debate the amendment, and we are going to have a vote actually at 5:30 or thereabouts, or we think we will. If not, we will have a vote tomorrow. We all have our expertise. I don't even want to say--it is a little presumptuous. I don't know that I am the expert, but 20 years of my adult life was education. I take it seriously. I happen to have been someone who did not do well on some of these standardized tests. I know the danger of relying on just one standardized test. I think the amendment that was agreed to last week was important. We do want to have multiple measures, and I think we do want to have a relationship between the tests and the curriculum being taught. The only thing this amendment does is say: Look, let's be clear. All States have to meet the deadline. I am sure those of my colleagues who are all for mandatory tests would insist on that. I am not going to disagree at all. But I am saying let's give the bonus to States for high-quality tests. That is really what we want to reward. That is what we are trying to push. If we are going to do this, let's make sure we are doing an accurate assessment of how the children are doing. If this is all being done in the name of accountability, that is to say we want to know how children are doing in different schools in America, then let's make sure we have the best assessment. That is all this amendment says. Let's have a bonus payment that goes in the direction of nurturing and promoting the best possible assessment. It is a good amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose this conference report. As I have said consistently, I support tax relief, and have voted for more modest alternative tax cut packages. But I believe in tax cuts that reward work, not wealth. That are distributed fairly across the economic spectrum, with a special emphasis on relief for those most in need, who bear an unjust proportion of the tax burden, including payroll taxes, already--working families. The original Senate bill did not meet this test. Sadly, when confronted by the priorities of the most extreme elements of the House Republicans, the conference committee has made a bad bill even worse--more grossly unfair, with more of the benefits tilted toward the very wealthiest Americans. The worst possible outcome for this decade would be a return to a 1980s mentality of huge tax breaks for the rich, increases in a bloated military budget, and neglect of our social infrastructure, including key insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare. Yet that appears to be where the President and the Congressional majority would have us go. We are making a terrible mistake if we pass this conference report today. I can't say it more plainly than that. We are making a grave mistake. If the economy goes south, this conference report will almost certainly leave us without sufficient funds to make key reforms in Medicare like providing for a new prescription drug benefit, or for reforming Social Security in a way that will secure its future for generations to come. The costs of these tax cuts, so obviously backloaded, will explode just at the time when a huge generation of baby boomers prepare to retire in 10 years. And they will be left holding the bag, along with the generations that come after. The American people should not have any illusions about what we are about to do. The economy and hard choices made in the past have endowed us with budget surpluses. In a time of growing economic uncertainty, it's not yet clear how large they'll be; private economists, the Congressional Budget Office, and even White House (OMB) estimators have all readily acknowledged the uncertainty of their projections. But it's clear there is some surplus, and Congress has to decide how to spend it. If we had crafted a fairer, more modest tax bill, the benefits of which would have been distributed according to some principles of fairness, I would have supported it. But this conference report is nothing but a Robin Hood in reverse raid on the federal treasury. When fixes to the Alternate Minimum Tax and interest costs are added in, the tax cut will cost over $2 trillion over the next ten years. The cost will likely top $4 trillion over the following ten years (2012-2022). A vote for this bill is a vote to squander the opportunity to address our nation's most pressing problems. We could lift up all children and restore the shining promise of equal opportunity by investing in the education and health care of our kids, over 20 percent of whom still live in poverty in this country. We could move to restore the dignity of older Americans by providing affordable prescription drugs, long- term care, and securing the Social Security system. We could invest in responsible, long-term energy policies which protect our environment while boosting our energy capacities. Instead, we are today almost certainly deciding to ignore these priorities for years to come. We are surrendering on environmental conservation and protection. We are surrendering on investment in clean energy technologies. We are surrendering on tax relief for low and middle income Americans. And we are surrendering on decisions to invest in the health, character, skills and intellect of our kids. But it isn't just that we are spending nearly the whole surplus for the foreseeable future in one vote. It is what we are spending it on: tax cuts for the rich, the powerful, the connected. These tax cuts are still overwhelmingly weighted toward the wealthiest Americans: 35 percent of the benefits go to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Altogether, 55 percent of the cuts go the wealthiest 10 percent, while less than 16 percent of the cuts go to the 60 percent of American families who earn $44,000 or less. Put another way, 80 percent of Americans will get 30 percent of the benefits in the bill, while 70 percent of the benefits in the bill will go to the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes. There are provisions of this bill I support. There is modest tax relief in this bill that goes to those who most need it. But not nearly enough. And the price we pay for this meager relief for working families is tax cuts three times larger targeted to the richest Americans. That's not a deal that I would want to explain to the working people in my state. Consequently, Americans who earn between $27,000 and $44,000 will get an average tax cut of merely $596. But the wealthiest Americans, with an average income of over $900,000, will see an average cut of $44,536. Additionally, 10 million children, 1 in 7 children, live in families that will still get no benefit from the legislation, because the parents or guardians do not earn enough to qualify for the tax cuts in the bill. In contrast, in 2010, the plan fully repeals the estate tax. This will cost the Federal Government $30 billion in that year alone and will cost nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Yet the vast majority of estates, and nearly all small business and farms, will already be exempted from the estate tax when the repeal goes into effect because of the other estate tax reforms in the bill. By 2010, under the bill, a couple would be able to shield $7 million from estate taxes. Full repeal on top of those high exemptions will only benefit the richest of the rich. In Minnesota, in 1999 only 636 estates paid any estate tax. Only 636 estates out of the nearly 5 million people who lived in my State. Only 36 of those estates were valued at over $5 million! Now let me give credit where credit is due. At the strong insistence of some of us on the Democratic side, the child credit expansion that is included in the bill is a significant improvement over the President's proposal. It would be refundable to families earning more than $10,000 per year, phasing in at 15 percent of earnings above that amount. So, for example, a family earning $11,000 a year would get $150 and a family earning $16,000 would get $900 as a refund from the IRS. If this provision becomes law, half a million children will be lifted out of poverty. This proposal offers some modest relief for certain low and moderate income families with kids, and the Committee should be applauded for at least including a partially refundable child credit in this bill. However, the partial refundability provision in this bill would still leave 10 million very poor children behind. That includes every child of a parent who works full-time at the minimum wage. Children left behind with the partial-refundability proposal include: 2 million children with a disabled parent; more than 300,000 children who live with a grandparent or other family members who are not working because they are retired; more than 6 million children whose parents work during all or part of the year; and 4 million children whose parents together worked at least 26 weeks--or half the year. Like the Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s, this bill is too big, and fiscally irresponsible. It is grossly unfair. Its benefits go mostly to the wealthiest Americans. It will crowd out critical investments in education, health care, protecting the environment, energy conservation and renewables, and other key priorities for years to come. It will severely limit our ability to protect Social Security and Medicare, just as the baby boomer generation is preparing to retire. In conclusion, Mr. President, as we get ready to vote, I thank my colleagues for all their cooperation on this vote and say, with a twinkle in my eye, to my good friends on the other side, that in some ways this tax cut has finally made me a fiscal conservative because, as I look at what is going to happen in the out years, I see a huge erosion of the revenue base. I am so worried that at the very time people reach the age where they qualify for Social Security and Medicare, we are not going to have the resources. This is a mistake. It is a profound mistake, though I understand the good intentions and goodwill of, for example, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. On another point: Whatever happened to the President's goal of leave no child behind? Whatever happened? The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. The huge victory here--if you want to call it that--for those who believe there is no positive role for Government to make in the lives of people is that there will not be the revenue. So for those children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, we are not going to have the funding for title I. We won't be able to make the commitment to make sure the children are kindergarten-ready or that higher education will be affordable. We won't be able to renew our national vow of equal opportunity for every child. I believe these tax cuts are directly antithetical to what our country is about, which is equal opportunity for every child. That is why I will vote no.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Steel Revitalization Act of 2001. This is the companion measure to H.R. 808 which, as of this moment, has 189 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. The measure represents a comprehensive approach to a serious crisis which is facing our domestic iron ore and steel industry. Several of the provisions contained in this act are ones that my colleagues in the bipartisan Steel Caucus have introduced in the Senate. I particularly thank Senators Rockefeller and Specter for their work in cochairing this caucus, and Senator Byrd for his unflinching support of the entire steel industry and his creative efforts on behalf of the industry's working families. A special thank you to Senator Rockefeller, who has been absolutely the leader on this issue. The Steel Revitalization Act includes the following components: First, there is import relief. We go back to a 5-year period of quantitative restrictions on the import of iron ore. We go back prior to the import surge in 1997. We go to a 3-year average. That is where we hold the line. Between February and March, 2001, there was a 40- percent surge in the import of steel or semifinished steel, way under the cost of production, constituting unfair trade and putting people out of work. Second, there is creation of a steelworker retiree health care fund which is administered by the steelworker retiree health care board at the Department of Labor. This fund would be underwritten through a 1.5- percent surcharge on the sale of all steel products in the United States, both imported and domestic. One of the awful things about what is going on is many of the retirees worked their whole life, thought they had health care coverage, and are terrified they will not have the health care coverage. A 70-year-old struggling with cancer now is worried there will be no health care coverage. Third, we have the enhancement of the current Steel Loan Guarantee Program which provides the steel companies greater access to funds needed to invest in capital improvements to take advantage of the latest technological advancements. Finally, we have the creation of a $500 million grant program at the Department of Commerce to help defray the costs of environmental mitigation and the restructuring as a result of consolidation--again, assuming these companies make a commitment to invest in our country; again, assuming these companies make a commitment to the workers. I think all Senators can appreciate this legislation. The Iron Range of Minnesota, and if you think of our sister State of Michigan, this is a part of the United States of America with a proud history of providing key raw materials to the producers of steel for well over a century. In these taconite mines are some of the hardest working people you ever want to meet. LTV has closed down in Hoyt Lakes; 1,400 miners lost their work. They are steelworkers, but they work in the mines. These were good, middle-class jobs. It is not just these workers who have lost their jobs; it has the ripple effect on all the small businesses, all the subcontractors, all the suppliers--all the families. I am in schools all the time. There is such pain, such concern about the future of these families and concern for the future of their children. From my point of view, and I know I speak for Senator Dayton, there is probably not a more important piece of legislation to introduce. The introduction of a piece of legislation is not symbolic politics. It does not mean it passes. We have a lot of work cut out for us, but I will say to my colleague from Virginia, I thank publicly on the floor of the Senate--I certainly have called her--Secretary of Labor Chao. We are, again, in a situation right now where there is a lot of economic pain, a lot of economic desperation. The Secretary of Labor has provided the workers up there with at least some relief, which was extremely important. We were so hopeful we could get trade adjustment assistance benefits. The Secretary of Labor granted us an additional year, above and beyond unemployment benefits that workers receive through the State of Minnesota. It is additional money for job relocation. For workers and their families to get that trade adjustment assistance is a lifeline. It gives them more time. It gives them an opportunity to think about what ladder there is for career development. It gives them some financial assistance for their families. I have told Secretary Chao--I don't know if I will get her in trouble with the administration by being so glowing about what I have to say about her--I so appreciate it and so do the people in the State of Minnesota. I want to publicly thank her. I also want to say we are now waiting, of course, for the administration on a decision--Secretary Evans will make a decision soon--as to whether or not we will be taking some trade action to really make sure we have a future for this industry. The next big decision is going to be in mid-June about whether or not the taconite workers on the Iron Range in Minnesota are going to have a future. This industry will not survive if it is continually faced with unfair trade practices, if it continues to face this import surge of slab or finished steel. Our taconite workers on the Iron Range of Minnesota ask nothing more than to have a level playing field. We wait for a decision mid-June. I think steelworkers and industrial workers all across the country-- and I think they will have a lot of allies--will in a strong voice say you have to take some action. For the Iron Range in Minnesota, northeast Minnesota, time is not neutral. Time moves on. It is extremely important, above and beyond this lifeline assistance, that we get serious about a fair trade policy so these workers and their families have a future. There is companion legislation in the House. Very important work has been done by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Specter. I think we can get some strong bipartisan support, but it is not going to be enough to just introduce a bill. We will need action from the administration and we will need legislative action if there is to be a future for this extremely important industry--which, by the way, I think is essential to our national security. This legislation is legislation near and dear to my heart because it is so connected to the lives and people I truly love, that is to say the steelworkers and their families on the Iron Range of the State of Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on American Indian Heritage Month, which is celebrated in Minnesota in May. It is fitting that we take time during this month to recall the contributions, services and heritage of our fellow Native American citizens, and to remember that the enormous contributions and talents of Native American continue to enrich our lives every day. In our review of these vital contributions, we must acknowledge the courage, talent, determination, leadership and vision of those men, women and children who made an impact on our Nation in the face of incredible obstacles. We should be mindful, as we celebrate the culture, heritage and spiritual contributions of the first Americans, that we must re-dedicate ourselves to preserving the unique relationship between Native Americans tribal governments and the Federal Government. Many of the basic principles of our Constitution, such as freedom of speech and separation of powers, were embodied in practices already in use by American Indian tribal prior to our Republic. Many of our deepest values, such as respect for the preservation of natural resources, reverence for elders, and adherence to tradition, find root in American Indian traditions. The relationship between American Indians and the Federal Government is unique and finds no parallel. When the United States was organized as a Nation, government officials continued the practice from the Dutch and British of making treaty agreements with American Indian Nations whenever land boundaries needed to be clarified or negotiated. All of the land in Minnesota was gained by the United States through a series of treaties with the Anishinabe and Dakota Nations. Sixteen treaties and four agreements applied to American Indians of Minnesota. One of the earliest treaties to affect Minnesota's American Indians was the Pike Treaty of 1806, which allowed the Federal Government to claim a small section of land near the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers to build a military fort, which ultimately became known as Fort Snelling. The 1825 Treaty of Prairie du Chien created a boundary between the Dakota to the south and the Ojibwe who lived in the woodland country to the north. In addition to acknowledging the historical context of the relationship between the Federal Government and the American Indians, we should also recognize the various contemporary entities and contributions of these Bands. Their efforts have helped shape the social, economic and political landscape of our region. In the area of economic development, the Minnesota American Indian Chamber of Commerce has done tremendous work in the area of advanced telecommunications, and other forms of business development to expand economic opportunities for American Indians on reservations as well as in urban areas. The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe was honored by the Harvard Project on American Indian Innovation in 1999 for their Ojibwe Language Program. This is a highly successful effort to revitalize the Band's native language by teaching it to their younger members in innovative ways. Our community also is extremely privileged to have an organization with the capacity and outreach of American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center. This organization provides necessary education and job training skills, serving as a bridge between public school and employment or college for its students. I am also proud to commend the organizations that comprise the Metropolitan Urban Indian Directors for their unwavering efforts to examine and address many critical issues and challenges facing urban American Indians. Native Americans in my State, and indeed in all fifty States, are justly proud of their heritage and culture. They can be just as proud of their efforts today to preserve that heritage, to protect that culture and to make it relevant for today's Native American children, and it is those efforts that I honor today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators Dayton, Byrd, and Stabenow, the Steel Revitalization Act of 2001. This is the companion measure to H.R. 808, which, as of this moment, has 189 cosponsors in the House. The measure represents a comprehensive approach to the serious crisis facing our domestic iron ore and steel industry. I want to note that several of the provisions contained in the Act are ones that my colleagues in the bi-partisan Steel Caucus here in the Senate and our counterparts in the House have been working on for some time. I want to publicly acknowledge and thank, in particular, Senators Rockefeller and Specter for their work in co-chairing the Caucus, and Senator Byrd for his unflinching support of the entire steel industry and his creative efforts on behalf of the industry's working families. The Steel Revitalization Act includes the following four components: 1. A five-year period of quantitative restrictions on the import of iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished steel products. Import levels would be set for each product line at the average level of penetration that occurred during the three years prior to the onset of the steel import crisis in late 1997. 2. Creation of a Steelworker Retiree Health Care Fund to be administered by a Steelworker Retiree Health Care Board at the Department of Labor which would be accessible by all steel companies that provide health insurance to retirees at the time of enactment. The Fund would be underwritten through a 1.5 percent surcharge on the sale of all steel products in the United States, both imported and domestic. 3. Enhancement of the current Steel Loan Guarantee program to provide steel companies greater access to funds needed to invest in capital improvements and take advantage of the latest technological advancements. Among other things, the Act would (a) increase the current Steel Loan Guarantee authorization from $1 billion to $10 billion, (b) increase the loan coverage from 85 percent to 95 percent, and (c) extend the duration of financing from 5 to 15 years. 4. Creation of a $500 million grant program at the Department of Commerce to help defray the cost of environmental mitigation and restructuring as a result of consolidation. Companies which have merged will be eligible to apply for such funds if their grant application outlines a merger that will retain 80 percent of the domestic blue- collar workforce and production capacity for 10 years after the merger. The recent economic conditions facing the U.S. iron ore and steel industry are of particular concern to those in my home state of Minnesota. We are extremely proud of our state's history as the nation's largest producer of iron ore. The iron ore and taconite mines, located on the Iron Range in Minnesota and in our sister state of Michigan, have provided key raw materials to the nation's steel producers for over a century. You will not find a harder working, more committed group of workers anywhere in this country than you find in the iron ore and taconite industry. This is a group of people who work under the toughest of conditions, are absolutely committed to their families, and who now face dire circumstances, through no fault of their own, because of the effects of unfairly traded iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished steel products. Earlier this year, for example, citing poor economic conditions, LTV Steel Mining Company halted production at the Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota mine, leaving 1,400 workers out of good-paying jobs and affecting nearly 5,000 additional workers as well. These are people who believe in the importance of a strong domestic steel industry to the economic and national security of our country. The Steel Revitalization Act is a comprehensive measure designed to address the multiplicity of needs facing the iron ore and steel industry today. It provides import relief, industry-wide sharing of the huge retiree health care cost burdens resulting from massive layoffs during the 1970's and 1980's, improved access to capital, and assistance for industry consolidation that protects American jobs. It is imperative that we act and that we act soon. Failing economic conditions, huge health care legacy cost burdens, and staggering levels of iron ore, semi-finished steel, and finished steel imports pose immense threats to this essential industry. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join in helping to pass this critical legislation at the earliest possible date. Relief for this essential industry is long overdue. We cannot afford to delay. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is my privilege today to commend the University of Minnesota, its students, staff faculty, alumni and supporters for its long history of excellence and accomplishments. The University of Minnesota celebrates its 150th anniversary this year as one of the Nation's great public universities. The University was established in 1851, six years prior to the founding of Minnesota as a state. It began as a small preparatory school and operated without State or Federal funding. During the Civil was the University went through a series of trying financial times, but was greatly lifted when Congress passed the Morril Land Grant Act in 1862. Signed by President Abraham Lincoln, this act gifted over 100,000 acres of land for public use in Minnesota, and called for the creation of a perpetual public fund. The interest on this fund was to go towards, in the historic words of the document, ``the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanical arts . . . in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in several pursuits and professions in life.'' In 1869 William Watts Folwell was inaugurated as the first president of the University. At that time there were only nine faculty members and 18 students. Today the University of Minnesota system is home to nearly 60,000 undergraduate and graduate students under the direction of President Mark Yudof. As a land-grant institution, the University of Minnesota with its campuses in Crookston, Duluth, Morris and the Twin Cities has earned distinction as one of the most prestigious and competitive public university systems in the nation. Since the first two bachelors of arts degrees were awarded in 1873, the university has granted over 549,000 undergraduate degrees and 25,000 Ph.D.'s in over 373 fields of study. Such rich academic diversity has allowed for students to walk in step with their dreams. The University of Minnesota has fostered an environment for high- standards of education, academic achievement, and public service. It conducts some 300 programs serving children and youth, and students and staff of the University work with over 700,000 Minnesotans every year on issues ranging from agricultural research, health and medical sciences, to social development. The University of Minnesota is also a major source of employment, providing work for more than 100,000 Minnesotans. As a major research institution the University has produced scholars of national and international distinction, including 13 faculty members and alumni who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, including the Nobel Peace Prize. Alumni, faculty and staff have also developed a strong tradition of giving back to the University, beginning with historic philanthropist and University Regent, John Sargent Pillsbury in 1867, and continuing today. Private donations, grants and scholarship funds, along with Federal and State funds help the University of Minnesota to provide students with the necessary resources for a world-class education. As a Senator from Minnesota I take pride in congratulating the University of Minnesota, with its solid and colorful academic history, on its 150th year of excellence. The State of Minnesota and the nation shall continue to benefit greatly from the efforts of this fine public university.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this cuts the tax cut from the top .7 percent and instead puts the money into the HOPE Scholarship Program which would make it refundable. It would make a refundable tax credit, which means your community college students, who are about the hardest working group of students one will ever find--many are going back to school; many of them are men and women in their thirties and forties with children--would then be able to afford this. Right now, if their income is below $26,000, $27,000 a year, they do not get any benefit unless it is refundable. We could not do anything more important for higher education, especially if you care about the working class, these community college students. I hope there will be great support for this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and the nays, and I say to colleagues, all this does is cut the tax cut for the top .7 percent. I do not know where my colleague gets these figures. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce long overdue legislation that will bring affordable prescription drugs to all Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation is the Medicare Extension of Drugs to Seniors, MEDS, Act of 2001. For a good period of the time that I have been a Senator, the Federal Government has operated with budget deficits. The goal during that period was deficit reduction, while protecting the programs that are important for people. I had hoped that when the economy began to do better, and we began to see surpluses, that finally, as a Senator from Minnesota, I would be able to do really well for people. It would not just be stopping the worst, it would be doing the better. Unfortunately, what we have this year in Washington instead is a choice. Either you are in favor of Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with as much as 40 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent of earners. Or you are in favor of making an investment above and beyond reducing the debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare. I am one who favors making investments in people, for making sure that there is opportunity for all, quality education for all our children and young people, quality and affordable housing, that we honor our commitments to our veterans, that we reform mental health and achieve parity for mental health and addiction treatment services, that we help women out of domestic violence. And that we make sure that the senior citizens who built this country are able to afford prescription drugs. Everyone in Congress knows there is a need for more affordable prescription drugs. Everyone in Congress knows that the surplus is large enough to afford both a fair tax cut and better prescription drug coverage for seniors. The surplus is largely thanks to sound budget decisions made in the early 1990s, which promoted economic growth and greatly expanded tax revenues. Those surpluses now make it not only possible, but imperative that we address the prescription drug cost crisis. We must remember that Congress also made mistakes during the 1990s. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 brought cuts in Medicare spending, cuts that I opposed and that will total over $600 billion. It is only fair, now that there is a surplus, to return those cuts in health care spending back into the health care system where there is need. And I don't have to tell colleagues about the need. We all know it from our own families and our constituents. When Medicare was first enacted in 1965 the program ``mimicked'' typical private insurance which often did not include outpatient prescription drugs. Times have changed, but in that regard Medicare has not. Virtually all employment based insurance now includes outpatient prescription drug coverage. Fully 99 percent of state and local government employees have this coverage. The federal employees program requires all plans to cover out patient prescription drugs, and Medicaid in every state does the same. Its time to bring Medicare up to date with a prescription drug plan available to all beneficiaries. You don't have to tell people that prescription drugs are the largest out-of-pocket health care cost for seniors. They know. Over 85 percent of Medicare beneficiaries take at least one prescription medicine, and the average senior citizen fills eighteen prescriptions per year. Nationally, more than half of the cost of these drugs comes directly out of seniors' pockets. In Minnesota the number is even higher. Seniors who cannot afford drug coverage often do not take the drugs their doctors prescribe. One of every eight senior citizens at some time is forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. That's not right. Charles Van Guilder, a Minnesota senior, was faced with the devastating option of having to divorce his wife in order to protect their assets which might be stripped away by high-rising Medicare HMO costs. Struggling with Parkinson's Disease, she was faced with an $850 monthly charge for prescription drugs and home health premiums. Rose Grigsby was faced with a choice of living in Arizona where because of disparities in Medicare + Choice reimbursements she payed $17.50 a month for her healthcare including prescription drugs and even a health club membership and moving back home to Minnesota where she would have to pay $270 a month for 80 percent drug coverage. Despite wanting to be with family, she couldn't afford to move. Where's the fairness in that? It is time we add prescription drug coverage to Medicare so it is available on an equal basis to every senior in every state. The drug industry America's most profitable has never wanted a prescription drug benefit included in Medicare. The industry is interested in protecting its very large profits. The most recent annual Fortune 500 report on American business showed once again as it has in each of the last 19 years that the pharmaceutical industry ranks first in profits. In the words of the editors of Fortune Magazine, ``Whether you gauge profitability by median return on revenues, assets or equity, pharmaceuticals had a Viagra kind of year.'' Where the average Fortune 500 industry in the United States returned 5 percent profits as a percentage of revenue, the pharmaceutical industry returned 18.6 percent. Where the average Fortune 500 industry returned 3.8 percent profits as a percentage of their assets, the pharmaceutical industry returned 16.5 percent. Where the average Fortune 500 industry returned 15 percent profits as a percentage of shareholders equity, the pharmaceutical industry returned 36 percent. The richest pharmaceutical company, Merck, pulled in nearly $6 billion in profits, more than the entire Fortune 500 airline industry and registered twice the profits of the engineering construction industry. The 12 major companies of the pharmaceutical industry made $10 Billion more in total profits than the 24 companies of the motor vehicle and parts industry, including Ford, GM and others. Those record profits are no surprise to America's senior citizens. Medicare beneficiaries without prescription drug coverage are being gouged every day of the week by a pharmaceutical industry that charges higher prices in the United States than in any other country of the world. So, America's seniors know where those record profits come from--they come from their own pocketbooks. Year after year, the pharmaceutical industry rakes in record profits, much at the expense of America's most vulnerable citizens: the elderly, frail and ill. The high price of drugs forces seniors to chose between food and life preserving medications. Last year, when a Medicare prescription drug benefit available to all Senior Citizens seemed within reach, the pharmaceutical industry dipped into its coffers and forked over millions of dollars to fund a stealth campaign to defeat any such proposal. Nowhere in its campaign against a Medicare prescription drug benefit did the pharmaceutical industry tell people that it was the prescription-drug companies that were paying for the campaign. The industry's front organization is called Citizens for Better Medicare. That is like Foxes for Better Chickens. A more accurate description would be Pharmaceutical Companies for Higher Profits. But drug companies would rather hide behind a false shield, count their profits and count the ways they can continue to extract high profits from the American public, especially from the elderly. Indeed, according to a report from the Boston University School of Public Health, the pharmaceutical industry has encouraged the spread of seven interlocking myths that have ``permeated, paralyzed and poisoned'' public discourse of prescription drug policy. Let me just share 2 of those myths: Myth #1: High prices and profits are bestowed on the drug industry by a legitimate and bountiful free market. In reality, little of a free market is present in the world of patented prescription drugs. Today's prices and profits are therefore not justified by a legitimate free market. Myth #2: If government interferes with today's high price and profits, ``The lights go out in the labs, and there is no R&D,'' according to PhRMA, the drug industry's lobbying arm. As the Boston University researchers noted, that is like saying ``give us all of your money or we'll let you die.'' The researchers call that PhRMA's Fog of Fear. But the reality is the drug makers' profit-maximization is not to increase research. The facts are: Analysis of 1999 data shows that the six major drug makers spent 11 percent of their revenue on research and development, while 16 percent went to profits and 31 percent went to marketing and administration. These data closely parallel those collected in earlier years. Looking at the main task of drug company employees, as of June 1998: Fully 35 percent of drug makers' employees were engaged in marketing, with an additional 13 percent in administration. Producing and developing drugs each occupied only about one-quarter of employees. Looking at changes in employment of PhRMA members, from 1995 to 1999: The number of production workers fell, research workers rose slightly, while marketing employment rose by one- third. The fact is there is plenty of room for the pharmaceutical industry to make a good profit without gouging the American consumer. The fact also is that with each passing year, the need for Medicare prescription drug coverage has become more acute. The reasons are well known. First, the cost of prescription drugs has skyrocketed in recent years. Direct to consumer advertising has increased demand, and drug companies have responded by raising prices and putting life saving drugs even further out of reach of the average senior citizen. Last year alone drug prices increased an estimated 17 percent. And there is no relief in sight. This year drug costs will increase another 18 percent. Second, these increases hit seniors disproportionately: A 1998 study by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee found that older Americans without prescription drug insurance pay on average twice as much as the discounted prices drug companies offer large scale purchasers like HMOs and government agencies. The PRIME Institute, headed by Steve Schondelmeyer, at the University of Minnesota found what Minnesota seniors already know, that pharmaceutical prices overseas are far less then we pay in the United States. Statistics say that for every dollar we spend in the United States, Canadians spend on average just 64 cents; Italians spend just 51 cents; the English 65 cents and Swedes 68 cents. They say statistics often lie. Well, from what I have seen and heard, the drugs seniors need most are even more expensive in the United States than those statistics tell us. Even more astounding than the average figures are some specific comparisons: Synthroid for thyroid disease costs seniors 14 times the discounted price to favored customers; and Micronase for diabetes costs over 3\1/ 2\ times as much. So not only are seniors forced the pay out of pocket for these drugs, but the price they are charged is a national disgrace. Furthermore, prescription drug spending accounts for 19 percent of the out of pocket costs for senior citizens and is the largest spending category after premium payments. Beneficiaries were projected to spend an average of $480 out-of-pocket on prescription drugs in 2000. Average out-of-pocket prescription drug spending is even higher for beneficiaries in poor health, $685, those without drug coverage, $715, and those who are severely limited in their activities of daily living, $725. The high cost of drugs puts Americans in all income groups at risk. Of those seniors with incomes below 250 percent of poverty about 38 percent, 7.6 million, lack Rx drug coverage. Of those with higher incomes 28 percent, 5.4 million, have no drug coverage. The increase in drugs cost and utilization is far outpacing the overall increase in the cost of living. A national study by Brandeis University and PCS Health Systems published in May 2000 found that prescription drug expenditure trends were even higher than previously estimated. They found that: Prescription drug costs grew at an annual rate of 24.8 percent per year from 1996 to 1999. Prescriptions per enrollee grew 14 percent per year. And not surprisingly, the number of prescriptions per person is rising fastest in the 65+ age group, from an average of 16 prescriptions in 1996 to an average of 23 by 1999. Rural Americans are hardest hit of all. In June 2000 the National Economic Council published a report on prescription drug coverage for rural Medicare beneficiaries. Among its findings: Rural beneficiaries are over 60 percent more likely to fail to get needed prescription drugs due to cost. A greater proportion of rural elderly spend a greater percent of their income on prescription drugs. Rural beneficiaries use nearly 10 percent more prescriptions. Rural beneficiaries pay over 25 percent more out-of-pocket for prescription drugs than urban beneficiaries but they are 50 percent less likely to have any prescription drug coverage. For Minnesotans, the lack of a Medicare prescription drug benefit hits especially hard because there are few alternatives. Only 19 percent of Minnesota firms offer retiree health insurance and the number has been dropping. Medicare's HMO reimbursement in Minnesota is so low that no basic Medicare Managed Care Plans can include Rx Drug coverage. Even with the increased Medicare + Choice capitation payment floor we voted in last year, it is not enough for these plans to offer prescription drug coverage. When a comprehensive benefit without a cap is available, the costs become prohibitive--up to $130 per month, just for the pharmacy benefit. The cost of prescription drug coverage under the average Medigap policy in Minnesota is $90 per month, and that is only for limited benefits. Because of this, in Minnesota, 65 percent of seniors have no prescription drug coverage. That's twice the national average. But the fact is over half of the Seniors in the United States have either no prescription drug coverage or totally inadequate coverage. Both the high cost of drugs and lack of coverage have severe consequences. People discontinue their medications against medical advice, thereby placing themselves at risk for problems like heart attacks, cancer recurrence, depression and complications of diabetes. People lower the dose they take to make their prescriptions last longer. When I was in Duluth, Minnesota, meeting with seniors to discuss this very issue, one of my constituents told me about a neighbor who cut his pills in quarters because he couldn't afford to refill the prescription and wound up with an unnecessary hospitalization. People take their medicines as prescribed but then skimp on food and other necessities. Ray Erlandson, a retired steel worker from West Duluth was at that meeting in Duluth. Ray was spending about $300 a month for prescription drugs for he and his wife. He had nearly run out of savings. What does Ray say? ``People have to choose between food and buying their drugs. That shouldn't happen in this country. It's a dirty rotten shame. I'd like to ask the VIPs of the drug companies, Do you go to church? Do you know what you are doing to the elderly people?'' How can the richest country on earth force its senior citizens to choose between the medicines they need to survive and the foods they need to stay healthy? We shouldn't allow it. The answer is to provide a prescription drug benefit for all seniors that includes a pricing policy that keeps costs affordable. In the 1960s when barely half the nation's senior citizens could afford health insurance, and far more were at risk for the loss of their life savings, we as a country responded and created Medicare. Today, at the beginning of a new century, when only half the nation's seniors--at best--have close to adequate prescription drug coverage, we are again called upon as a nation to respond. The beauty of it all is that we have a surplus that allows us to respond with a prescription drug program that we can all be proud of. The tragedy of it all is that we are not doing it. We have an administration that is more concerned with giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans than it is with providing the life sustaining medications our seniors need. We have a pharmaceutical industry that is more concerned with maximizing profits and making campaign contributions than it is with maximizing access to life saving medications and making prescription drugs affordable. The administration's prescription drug proposal is a clear demonstration of just where their priorities are. Republicans want to give $550 billion in tax cuts just to the wealthiest 1 percent of American families, leaving a pittance for Medicare prescription drugs. And the effect of those priorities will be seen in their as yet undisclosed plan: high premiums for beneficiaries; high deductibles, up to $2000; high co-pay; or a benefit available to only a fraction of the seniors who need it. In short, a benefit that isn't worth much. Millions of seniors will be left still holding the bag. You can't provide the kind of Medicare Rx Drug benefit that everyone on Medicare deserves with a tin-cup budget. Any meaningful prescription drug benefit passed by this Congress should reflect key principles: universality; low cost to beneficiaries; and serious efforts to reduce the price of prescription drugs. To remedy the high cost of prescription drugs and to provide comprehensive coverage, I am proud to introduce the Medicare Extension of Drugs to Seniors, MEDS, Act of 2001. Specifically, under this proposal, seniors and the disabled would have a 20-percent co-pay on all prescription drugs and a small, $24 monthly premium. Every person would receive the same voluntary benefit, regardless of income or geographical location. Under the MEDS plan, no beneficiary would ever have to spend more than $2,000 out-of-pocket on their medications. Low-income beneficiaries would have no out-of-pocket expense. By contrast, other plans that have been proposed would have seniors paying up to $6,000 a year. Still, they would not necessarily cover everyone currently eligible for Medicare How can the MEDS plan provide such a strong benefit without busting the budget? By including provisions which seriously address the outrageously high prices that Americans are forced to pay for prescription drugs. First, the MEDS plan includes strong, loophole-free language to allow American pharmacists, wholesalers and distributors to purchase FDA- approved prescription drugs at the lower prices charged abroad. Last year, a version of this legislation passed both Houses of Congress with solid bipartisan majorities. Unfortunately, at the last minute, the pharmaceutical industry was successful in adding loopholes to the bill that essentially make it unworkable. With strong reimportation language like that included in the MEDS plan, Americans would save 30-50 percent on the price of prescription drugs without any government subsidy. Second, the MEDS plan includes a provision, originally proposed by Representative Tom Allen, that would permit Medicare beneficiaries to purchase their prescription drugs at the same price other government agencies such as the VA does. MEDS also creates a so-called ``global budget'' which would allow Medicare to negotiate on behalf of all Medicare beneficiaries and work to restrain costs in the long term. Finally, the MEDS plan would ensure that when taxpayers foot the bill for research and development of a prescription drug, the pharmaceutical industry must offer that drug at a fair and reasonable price. Today, the federal government spends billions of dollars a year on research and development of medicines. Most often, this R&D is then given over to the pharmaceutical industry, which charges Americans any price they want for the final product. If we change this absurd system, we would ensure that new medicines would be affordable in the years ahead. You can expect the pharmaceutical industry to protest loudly. And you can expect the industry to increase its campaign contributions, which totaled $19 million last year alone, its lobbying spending, which reached $91 million in 1999, and its advertising budget. It is interesting. One pharmaceutical company executive recently said that no senior citizen should be forced to choose between his or her prescription and other vital needs. But the high prices his company charges and the high-priced lobbyists who do its bidding on Capitol Hill are forcing that very choice on many senior citizens. While paying lip service to seniors, according to a published news story, that same executive was earning over $6 million in salary, plus stock options worth more than $10 million. The drug companies will say that reductions in price will dry up research. I believe that is nonsense. Drug companies put billions more dollars into profits, marketing and administration than they do into research, based on information in their own annual reports. Just how hard would this most profitable of American industries be hit if we enacted a universal Medicare prescription drug benefit that required the drug companies to offer seniors the best price they now offer other Federal government programs? According to Merrill Lynch, only by about 3 percent. In a June 23, 1999 report entitled A Medicare Drug Benefit: May Not Be So Bad, Merrill Lynch debunked the notion that a Medicare prescription drug benefit would seriously damage the pharmaceutical industry's profitability. Merrill Lynch's analysis concludes that the toughest proposal on the table in Washington, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, (The Allen Bill), the provisions of which are included in this bill, and which provides a 40 percent discount on drug costs for all 39 million Medicare beneficiaries, would cut just 3.3 percent from total pharmaceutical industry revenues because volume increases would offset much of the lost revenue due to the lower prices. According to Merrill Lynch: Volume is more important than price in driving pharmaceutical company sales growth. Between 1994 and 1998, the impact of volume on sales growth outpaced price by better than a 4-to-1 ratio. Medicare beneficiaries who either lack or have inadequate drug coverage underutilize prescription drugs because they cannot afford them. With a 40-percent price discount, the one-third of beneficiaries who lack any drug coverage would increase their consumption by 45 percent, and the two-thirds with some coverage would see a 10-percent increase in drug purchases. This increased utilization reduces the lost revenue that would otherwise result from a 40-percent price discount for Medicare beneficiaries by almost one-half. Without adjusting for volume increases, a 40-percent price discount for Medicare beneficiaries would reduce total pharmaceutical industry revenues by 5.9 percent. But after adjusting for increased utilization, the net drop in sales is just 3.3 percent. And that is from just a reduction in price, not an increase in coverage. If you factor in the coverage provided by the MEDS Act which all Seniors will have, drug company revenues will increase. It is time to get our priorities straight. Millions of hard-working Americans go to work every day and pay their taxes so that when they hit 65, they can retire in a country they can be proud of, a country that offers basic security for all an even better life for their children. Each day they read in the paper about scientific breakthroughs: the genome project and new advances in the treatment of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, all being carried out at the National Institutes of Health, one of our nation's jewels. They turn on the television and see drug company advertisements that extol new and expensive medications. But what good is that medical research and those expensive drugs if they are unaffordable and out of reach of millions of Americans. That is the situation we have today. And it is unacceptable! The time has come to support a comprehensive, affordable, 20-percent co-pay, $2000-cap, prescription drug benefit for all seniors, a plan that does not favor the health insurance or pharmaceutical industries over our own parents and grandparents. The MEDS Act provides such a benefit, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce long overdue legislation that will bring affordable prescription drugs to all Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation is the Medicare Extension of Drugs to Seniors, MEDS, Act of 2001. For a good period of the time that I have been a Senator, the Federal Government has operated with budget deficits. The goal during that period was deficit reduction, while protecting the programs that are important for people. I had hoped that when the economy began to do better, and we began to see surpluses, that finally, as a Senator from Minnesota, I would be able to do really well for people. It would not just be stopping the worst, it would be doing the better. Unfortunately, what we have this year in Washington instead is a choice. Either you are in favor of Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with as much as 40 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent of earners. Or you are in favor of making an investment above and beyond reducing the debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare. I am one who favors making investments in people, for making sure that there is opportunity for all, quality education for all our children and young people, quality and affordable housing, that we honor our commitments to our veterans, that we reform mental health and achieve parity for mental health and addiction treatment services, that we help women out of domestic violence. And that we make sure that the senior citizens who built this country are able to afford prescription drugs. Everyone in Congress knows there is a need for more affordable prescription drugs. Everyone in Congress knows that the surplus is large enough to afford both a fair tax cut and better prescription drug coverage for seniors. The surplus is largely thanks to sound budget decisions made in the early 1990s, which promoted economic growth and greatly expanded tax revenues. Those surpluses now make it not only possible, but imperative that we address the prescription drug cost crisis. We must remember that Congress also made mistakes during the 1990s. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 brought cuts in Medicare spending, cuts that I opposed and that will total over $600 billion. It is only fair, now that there is a surplus, to return those cuts in health care spending back into the health care system where there is need. And I don't have to tell colleagues about the need. We all know it from our own families and our constituents. When Medicare was first enacted in 1965 the program ``mimicked'' typical private insurance which often did not include outpatient prescription drugs. Times have changed, but in that regard Medicare has not. Virtually all employment based insurance now includes outpatient prescription drug coverage. Fully 99 percent of state and local government employees have this coverage. The federal employees program requires all plans to cover out patient prescription drugs, and Medicaid in every state does the same. Its time to bring Medicare up to date with a prescription drug plan available to all beneficiaries. You don't have to tell people that prescription drugs are the largest out-of-pocket health care cost for seniors. They know. Over 85 percent of Medicare beneficiaries take at least one prescription medicine, and the average senior citizen fills eighteen prescriptions per year. Nationally, more than half of the cost of these drugs comes directly out of seniors' pockets. In Minnesota the number is even higher. Seniors who cannot afford drug coverage often do not take the drugs their doctors prescribe. One of every eight senior citizens at some time is forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. That's not right. Charles Van Guilder, a Minnesota senior, was faced with the devastating option of having to divorce his wife in order to protect their assets which might be stripped away by high-rising Medicare HMO costs. Struggling with Parkinson's Disease, she was faced with an $850 monthly charge for prescription drugs and home health premiums. Rose Grigsby was faced with a choice of living in Arizona where because of disparities in Medicare + Choice reimbursements she payed $17.50 a month for her healthcare including prescription drugs and even a health club membership and moving back home to Minnesota where she would have to pay $270 a month for 80 percent drug coverage. Despite wanting to be with family, she couldn't afford to move. Where's the fairness in that? It is time we add prescription drug coverage to Medicare so it is available on an equal basis to every senior in every state. The drug industry America's most profitable has never wanted a prescription drug benefit included in Medicare. The industry is interested in protecting its very large profits. The most recent annual Fortune 500 report on American business showed once again as it has in each of the last 19 years that the pharmaceutical industry ranks first in profits. In the words of the editors of Fortune Magazine, ``Whether you gauge profitability by median return on revenues, assets or equity, pharmaceuticals had a Viagra kind of year.'' Where the average Fortune 500 industry in the United States returned 5 percent profits as a percentage of revenue, the pharmaceutical industry returned 18.6 percent. Where the average Fortune 500 industry returned 3.8 percent profits as a percentage of their assets, the pharmaceutical industry returned 16.5 percent. Where the average Fortune 500 industry returned 15 percent profits as a percentage of shareholders equity, the pharmaceutical industry returned 36 percent. The richest pharmaceutical company, Merck, pulled in nearly $6 billion in profits, more than the entire Fortune 500 airline industry and registered twice the profits of the engineering construction industry. The 12 major companies of the pharmaceutical industry made $10 Billion more in total profits than the 24 companies of the motor vehicle and parts industry, including Ford, GM and others. Those record profits are no surprise to America's senior citizens. Medicare beneficiaries without prescription drug coverage are being gouged every day of the week by a pharmaceutical industry that charges higher prices in the United States than in any other country of the world. So, America's seniors know where those record profits come from--they come from their own pocketbooks. Year after year, the pharmaceutical industry rakes in record profits, much at the expense of America's most vulnerable citizens: the elderly, frail and ill. The high price of drugs forces seniors to chose between food and life preserving medications. Last year, when a Medicare prescription drug benefit available to all Senior Citizens seemed within reach, the pharmaceutical industry dipped into its coffers and forked over millions of dollars to fund a stealth campaign to defeat any such proposal. Nowhere in its campaign against a Medicare prescription drug benefit did the pharmaceutical industry tell people that it was the prescription-drug companies that were paying for the campaign. The industry's front organization is called Citizens for Better Medicare. That is like Foxes for Better Chickens. A more accurate description would be Pharmaceutical Companies for Higher Profits. But drug companies would rather hide behind a false shield, count their profits and count the ways they can continue to extract high profits from the American public, especially from the elderly. Indeed, according to a report from the Boston University School of Public Health, the pharmaceutical industry has encouraged the spread of seven interlocking myths that have ``permeated, paralyzed and poisoned'' public discourse of prescription drug policy. Let me just share 2 of those myths: Myth #1: High prices and profits are bestowed on the drug industry by a legitimate and bountiful free market. In reality, little of a free market is present in the world of patented prescription drugs. Today's prices and profits are therefore not justified by a legitimate free market. Myth #2: If government interferes with today's high price and profits, ``The lights go out in the labs, and there is no R&D,'' according to PhRMA, the drug industry's lobbying arm. As the Boston University researchers noted, that is like saying ``give us all of your money or we'll let you die.'' The researchers call that PhRMA's Fog of Fear. But the reality is the drug makers' profit-maximization is not to increase research. The facts are: Analysis of 1999 data shows that the six major drug makers spent 11 percent of their revenue on research and development, while 16 percent went to profits and 31 percent went to marketing and administration. These data closely parallel those collected in earlier years. Looking at the main task of drug company employees, as of June 1998: Fully 35 percent of drug makers' employees were engaged in marketing, with an additional 13 percent in administration. Producing and developing drugs each occupied only about one-quarter of employees. Looking at changes in employment of PhRMA members, from 1995 to 1999: The number of production workers fell, research workers rose slightly, while marketing employment rose by one- third. The fact is there is plenty of room for the pharmaceutical industry to make a good profit without gouging the American consumer. The fact also is that with each passing year, the need for Medicare prescription drug coverage has become more acute. The reasons are well known. First, the cost of prescription drugs has skyrocketed in recent years. Direct to consumer advertising has increased demand, and drug companies have responded by raising prices and putting life saving drugs even further out of reach of the average senior citizen. Last year alone drug prices increased an estimated 17 percent. And there is no relief in sight. This year drug costs will increase another 18 percent. Second, these increases hit seniors disproportionately: A 1998 study by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee found that older Americans without prescription drug insurance pay on average twice as much as the discounted prices drug companies offer large scale purchasers like HMOs and government agencies. The PRIME Institute, headed by Steve Schondelmeyer, at the University of Minnesota found what Minnesota seniors already know, that pharmaceutical prices overseas are far less then we pay in the United States. Statistics say that for every dollar we spend in the United States, Canadians spend on average just 64 cents; Italians spend just 51 cents; the English 65 cents and Swedes 68 cents. They say statistics often lie. Well, from what I have seen and heard, the drugs seniors need most are even more expensive in the United States than those statistics tell us. Even more astounding than the average figures are some specific comparisons: Synthroid for thyroid disease costs seniors 14 times the discounted price to favored customers; and Micronase for diabetes costs over 3\1/ 2\ times as much. So not only are seniors forced the pay out of pocket for these drugs, but the price they are charged is a national disgrace. Furthermore, prescription drug spending accounts for 19 percent of the out of pocket costs for senior citizens and is the largest spending category after premium payments. Beneficiaries were projected to spend an average of $480 out-of-pocket on prescription drugs in 2000. Average out-of-pocket prescription drug spending is even higher for beneficiaries in poor health, $685, those without drug coverage, $715, and those who are severely limited in their activities of daily living, $725. The high cost of drugs puts Americans in all income groups at risk. Of those seniors with incomes below 250 percent of poverty about 38 percent, 7.6 million, lack Rx drug coverage. Of those with higher incomes 28 percent, 5.4 million, have no drug coverage. The increase in drugs cost and utilization is far outpacing the overall increase in the cost of living. A national study by Brandeis University and PCS Health Systems published in May 2000 found that prescription drug expenditure trends were even higher than previously estimated. They found that: Prescription drug costs grew at an annual rate of 24.8 percent per year from 1996 to 1999. Prescriptions per enrollee grew 14 percent per year. And not surprisingly, the number of prescriptions per person is rising fastest in the 65+ age group, from an average of 16 prescriptions in 1996 to an average of 23 by 1999. Rural Americans are hardest hit of all. In June 2000 the National Economic Council published a report on prescription drug coverage for rural Medicare beneficiaries. Among its findings: Rural beneficiaries are over 60 percent more likely to fail to get needed prescription drugs due to cost. A greater proportion of rural elderly spend a greater percent of their income on prescription drugs. Rural beneficiaries use nearly 10 percent more prescriptions. Rural beneficiaries pay over 25 percent more out-of-pocket for prescription drugs than urban beneficiaries but they are 50 percent less likely to have any prescription drug coverage. For Minnesotans, the lack of a Medicare prescription drug benefit hits especially hard because there are few alternatives. Only 19 percent of Minnesota firms offer retiree health insurance and the number has been dropping. Medicare's HMO reimbursement in Minnesota is so low that no basic Medicare Managed Care Plans can include Rx Drug coverage. Even with the increased Medicare + Choice capitation payment floor we voted in last year, it is not enough for these plans to offer prescription drug coverage. When a comprehensive benefit without a cap is available, the costs become prohibitive--up to $130 per month, just for the pharmacy benefit. The cost of prescription drug coverage under the average Medigap policy in Minnesota is $90 per month, and that is only for limited benefits. Because of this, in Minnesota, 65 percent of seniors have no prescription drug coverage. That's twice the national average. But the fact is over half of the Seniors in the United States have either no prescription drug coverage or totally inadequate coverage. Both the high cost of drugs and lack of coverage have severe consequences. People discontinue their medications against medical advice, thereby placing themselves at risk for problems like heart attacks, cancer recurrence, depression and complications of diabetes. People lower the dose they take to make their prescriptions last longer. When I was in Duluth, Minnesota, meeting with seniors to discuss this very issue, one of my constituents told me about a neighbor who cut his pills in quarters because he couldn't afford to refill the prescription and wound up with an unnecessary hospitalization. People take their medicines as prescribed but then skimp on food and other necessities. Ray Erlandson, a retired steel worker from West Duluth was at that meeting in Duluth. Ray was spending about $300 a month for prescription drugs for he and his wife. He had nearly run out of savings. What does Ray say? ``People have to choose between food and buying their drugs. That shouldn't happen in this country. It's a dirty rotten shame. I'd like to ask the VIPs of the drug companies, Do you go to church? Do you know what you are doing to the elderly people?'' How can the richest country on earth force its senior citizens to choose between the medicines they need to survive and the foods they need to stay healthy? We shouldn't allow it. The answer is to provide a prescription drug benefit for all seniors that includes a pricing policy that keeps costs affordable. In the 1960s when barely half the nation's senior citizens could afford health insurance, and far more were at risk for the loss of their life savings, we as a country responded and created Medicare. Today, at the beginning of a new century, when only half the nation's seniors--at best--have close to adequate prescription drug coverage, we are again called upon as a nation to respond. The beauty of it all is that we have a surplus that allows us to respond with a prescription drug program that we can all be proud of. The tragedy of it all is that we are not doing it. We have an administration that is more concerned with giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans than it is with providing the life sustaining medications our seniors need. We have a pharmaceutical industry that is more concerned with maximizing profits and making campaign contributions than it is with maximizing access to life saving medications and making prescription drugs affordable. The administration's prescription drug proposal is a clear demonstration of just where their priorities are. Republicans want to give $550 billion in tax cuts just to the wealthiest 1 percent of American families, leaving a pittance for Medicare prescription drugs. And the effect of those priorities will be seen in their as yet undisclosed plan: high premiums for beneficiaries; high deductibles, up to $2000; high co-pay; or a benefit available to only a fraction of the seniors who need it. In short, a benefit that isn't worth much. Millions of seniors will be left still holding the bag. You can't provide the kind of Medicare Rx Drug benefit that everyone on Medicare deserves with a tin-cup budget. Any meaningful prescription drug benefit passed by this Congress should reflect key principles: universality; low cost to beneficiaries; and serious efforts to reduce the price of prescription drugs. To remedy the high cost of prescription drugs and to provide comprehensive coverage, I am proud to introduce the Medicare Extension of Drugs to Seniors, MEDS, Act of 2001. Specifically, under this proposal, seniors and the disabled would have a 20-percent co-pay on all prescription drugs and a small, $24 monthly premium. Every person would receive the same voluntary benefit, regardless of income or geographical location. Under the MEDS plan, no beneficiary would ever have to spend more than $2,000 out-of-pocket on their medications. Low-income beneficiaries would have no out-of-pocket expense. By contrast, other plans that have been proposed would have seniors paying up to $6,000 a year. Still, they would not necessarily cover everyone currently eligible for Medicare How can the MEDS plan provide such a strong benefit without busting the budget? By including provisions which seriously address the outrageously high prices that Americans are forced to pay for prescription drugs. First, the MEDS plan includes strong, loophole-free language to allow American pharmacists, wholesalers and distributors to purchase FDA- approved prescription drugs at the lower prices charged abroad. Last year, a version of this legislation passed both Houses of Congress with solid bipartisan majorities. Unfortunately, at the last minute, the pharmaceutical industry was successful in adding loopholes to the bill that essentially make it unworkable. With strong reimportation language like that included in the MEDS plan, Americans would save 30-50 percent on the price of prescription drugs without any government subsidy. Second, the MEDS plan includes a provision, originally proposed by Representative Tom Allen, that would permit Medicare beneficiaries to purchase their prescription drugs at the same price other government agencies such as the VA does. MEDS also creates a so-called ``global budget'' which would allow Medicare to negotiate on behalf of all Medicare beneficiaries and work to restrain costs in the long term. Finally, the MEDS plan would ensure that when taxpayers foot the bill for research and development of a prescription drug, the pharmaceutical industry must offer that drug at a fair and reasonable price. Today, the federal government spends billions of dollars a year on research and development of medicines. Most often, this R&D is then given over to the pharmaceutical industry, which charges Americans any price they want for the final product. If we change this absurd system, we would ensure that new medicines would be affordable in the years ahead. You can expect the pharmaceutical industry to protest loudly. And you can expect the industry to increase its campaign contributions, which totaled $19 million last year alone, its lobbying spending, which reached $91 million in 1999, and its advertising budget. It is interesting. One pharmaceutical company executive recently said that no senior citizen should be forced to choose between his or her prescription and other vital needs. But the high prices his company charges and the high-priced lobbyists who do its bidding on Capitol Hill are forcing that very choice on many senior citizens. While paying lip service to seniors, according to a published news story, that same executive was earning over $6 million in salary, plus stock options worth more than $10 million. The drug companies will say that reductions in price will dry up research. I believe that is nonsense. Drug companies put billions more dollars into profits, marketing and administration than they do into research, based on information in their own annual reports. Just how hard would this most profitable of American industries be hit if we enacted a universal Medicare prescription drug benefit that required the drug companies to offer seniors the best price they now offer other Federal government programs? According to Merrill Lynch, only by about 3 percent. In a June 23, 1999 report entitled A Medicare Drug Benefit: May Not Be So Bad, Merrill Lynch debunked the notion that a Medicare prescription drug benefit would seriously damage the pharmaceutical industry's profitability. Merrill Lynch's analysis concludes that the toughest proposal on the table in Washington, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, (The Allen Bill), the provisions of which are included in this bill, and which provides a 40 percent discount on drug costs for all 39 million Medicare beneficiaries, would cut just 3.3 percent from total pharmaceutical industry revenues because volume increases would offset much of the lost revenue due to the lower prices. According to Merrill Lynch: Volume is more important than price in driving pharmaceutical company sales growth. Between 1994 and 1998, the impact of volume on sales growth outpaced price by better than a 4-to-1 ratio. Medicare beneficiaries who either lack or have inadequate drug coverage underutilize prescription drugs because they cannot afford them. With a 40-percent price discount, the one-third of beneficiaries who lack any drug coverage would increase their consumption by 45 percent, and the two-thirds with some coverage would see a 10-percent increase in drug purchases. This increased utilization reduces the lost revenue that would otherwise result from a 40-percent price discount for Medicare beneficiaries by almost one-half. Without adjusting for volume increases, a 40-percent price discount for Medicare beneficiaries would reduce total pharmaceutical industry revenues by 5.9 percent. But after adjusting for increased utilization, the net drop in sales is just 3.3 percent. And that is from just a reduction in price, not an increase in coverage. If you factor in the coverage provided by the MEDS Act which all Seniors will have, drug company revenues will increase. It is time to get our priorities straight. Millions of hard-working Americans go to work every day and pay their taxes so that when they hit 65, they can retire in a country they can be proud of, a country that offers basic security for all an even better life for their children. Each day they read in the paper about scientific breakthroughs: the genome project and new advances in the treatment of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, all being carried out at the National Institutes of Health, one of our nation's jewels. They turn on the television and see drug company advertisements that extol new and expensive medications. But what good is that medical research and those expensive drugs if they are unaffordable and out of reach of millions of Americans. That is the situation we have today. And it is unacceptable! The time has come to support a comprehensive, affordable, 20-percent co-pay, $2000-cap, prescription drug benefit for all seniors, a plan that does not favor the health insurance or pharmaceutical industries over our own parents and grandparents. The MEDS Act provides such a benefit, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take a little time because I want to hear from my colleagues on the other side. In the budget resolution on the Senate side there was an amendment that Senator Harkin offered. I was an original cosponsor with Senator Harkin. This was an amendment on which Senators Murray and Kennedy joined. I think this amendment was adopted with 52 votes. We called for $250 billion over the next 10 years to go into education. There were altogether 52 Senators who voted in support. But, when the conference committee got its hands on the Harkin amendment, this commitment to education disappeared. This motion commits the reconciliation bill to the Senate Finance Committee and directs the committee to send the bill back to the Senate with a reserve fund of $120 billion; in other words, just half of what the Harkin amendment included. Where does the $120 billion for education come from over the next 10 years? The motion eliminates the cuts in the 39.6-percent tax bracket. My colleagues might ask: What happens to the 0.7 percent of Americans who pay taxes at this rate? That is all we are talking about, 0.7 percent of taxpayers. Do they not get a tax cut under this amendment? Absolutely they do, and they get a big one. In fact, the 0.7 percent of families who pay at least some tax at this rate--a married couple, for example, would have to earn over $297,000 a year to do so--will still get about a $8,400 cut in their taxes under this motion. That is a big cut. More importantly, 99.3 percent of American taxpayers will not have their tax cut affected by this motion at all. By slightly reducing the tax cut for 0.7 percent of the richest Americans, we can invest in what is 100 percent of our future, which is our children. That is what this amendment is all about. What does this mean? It means we can do better with afterschool programs. What does this mean? It means we can do better with more reading assistance for these children. What does this mean? It means we will not have as great a disparity in who can afford higher education. What does this mean? It means people who are laid off on the Iron Range will have job training and job education opportunities to find other work and do well. While too many of us are taking photos with children and talking about education, we have a system in the low-income communities where there are 50,000 unprepared teachers hired every year. How interesting it is. We are going to be doing all of this testing, which I will get back to when we get back to the education bill, but at the same time we are going to have a Federal mandate to test every child, we will not have a Federal mandate that will call for the same opportunity for every one of these children to learn and do well. How in the world do we think these children are going to do that if they do not have good teachers? How do we think they are going to do it in classes that are 50 in size? How do we think they are going to do it when the schools are so decrepit? How do we think they are going to do it when they do not have the additional help they need? While we are talking, about 25 percent of prekindergarten child care is considered to be good or excellent. Most of it is average to dangerous. While we are talking, over half of Minnesota's 10- to 12-year-olds have no care after school. That means children whose parents are working hard have no place to go but home alone. While we are talking, the Pell grant has declined in value to only 86 percent of what it was worth in 1980. This is a clear question of values. I urge my colleagues to support this motion. It leaves unaffected the tax cuts in this bill for 99.3 percent of American taxpayers. It takes some, but not all, of the surplus funds that would go to tax cuts for the wealthiest 0.7 percent of taxpayers, and it sets that money aside--$120 billion over 10 years--for education. The wealthiest 0.7 percent will still see their taxes cut by $8,400. The bill proposes to lock in $1.35 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. If this motion is adopted, we will still have $1.23 trillion of tax cuts, but we will also be locking in $120 billion for education. Here is the simple proposition: Should the Senate set aside $120 billion of the surplus over the next 10 years for education, an amount equal to one-tenth of the tax cuts that are proposed? I propose $10 in tax cuts but $1 for every $10 in new money for education. That should be an easy tradeoff for colleagues. I hope it is easy, and I hope they vote yes. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wish to respond directly to my colleague from Iowa. I am going to start out the same way he did because it has been a friendship. It is not like I dislike Senators, but I always say very positive things about him because I think he is one of the best people in the Senate. I think probably the other 98 Senators feel the same way. I am going to get back to education, but on this whole question of the elitist Washington viewpoint and people being able to work hard and, if you will, attain the American success or American dream--I know all about it. I don't want to get corny, but I think my father was 56 when my parents finally had enough money to buy a home. We thought we had died and gone to heaven. It was a little box, it was a teeny place, but for them, Jewish immigrants, it was a big deal. I understand full well what that is about. But I will tell you something and this is an honest to God disagreement we have. You mentioned the whole issue of nursing homes. First of all, both had Parkinson's disease. My parents are no longer alive, but other people's parents and grandparents, they are not going to get a break when it comes to being able to afford prescription drugs. That is why I support the Rockefeller amendment. I say to my colleague from Iowa, as a matter of fact, the Finance Committee is spending a lot of money on these tax cuts so that is not revenue that is there. If, in fact, you want to make sure senior citizens--then we will get to education--can afford prescription drugs, which means you cannot have too high a deductible or copay, which means you can't means-test it at $20,000 and then say because individuals have an income of $21,000 they don't get any break, which means you have to cover the catastrophic expenses--you cannot do it on the cheap. We are not going to have the money for it. You talk about nursing homes. My colleague from Iowa has done some of the best work, being there for consumers, going after some of the nursing home industry that do not live up to good standards. I agree with him. But the truth is, whether it is enabling people in Iowa and Minnesota to stay home as long as possible and to live with dignity-- that is what my mom or dad wanted--or go to a nursing home, from where do you think the money is going to come? Do you think that is going to be done on a $3,000 tax credit? It costs a lot more than that. Where is the commitment of resources going to be? We are not going to have it. It is all going to be crowded out by this legislation. I am saying to colleagues that for a couple with an income of $300,000 a year, their tax cut--they are going to get a tax cut. But their tax cut will be $8,400 a year. I think the majority of Minnesotans and couples in the United States of America who make $300,000 a year will say, if the tradeoff is we will be limited to a $8,400 tax cut but there will be more for children and for education, including our children, we are for it. Let's get real about this. This is all a debate about values and priorities. Mr. President, 52 Senators voted for the Harkin amendment. I was the first original cosponsor of that amendment. That was $250 billion, and in the budget resolution you said you were going to take it out of tax cuts. Mr. President, 52 Senators voted for that. I am now taking half of that $250 billion, $120 billion, and I am saying we take it out of the top 0.7 percent of the population, who still get a tax cut but not as much. You have voted in this ESEA authorization bill, as far as I can calculate, for $212 billion for the period of 2002 to 2008. Are we engaged in symbolic politics or is this for real? I heard some of my colleagues come to the floor and say we have to do more than talk the talk; we have to walk the walk. If you have voted to authorize $212 billion, from where do you think it is going to come? From where do you think it is going to come? My colleague from Iowa, and for all I know Democrats as well, are going to come out here and they are going to say that this motion violates the Budget Act and, because of the Senate's arcane rules, would require 60 votes. That is true. But, unfortunately, I have to bring this motion to the floor right now because you members of the Senate Finance Committee, you are the ones who are spending all this money. You are spending the money through the tax cuts. It is going to be $2 trillion over the next 10 years when all is said and done, and then in the following 10 years when the chickens come home to roost and we have more and more people who are 65 and 70 and 75 and 80, you are going to erode the revenue base by $4 trillion. Where is the money going to be for Medicare? Where is the money going to be for Social Security? It is fiscally irresponsible. Honest to God, this Senate Finance Committee--and I love you all individually--you are making me a fiscal conservative. I never thought I would ever say that on the floor of the Senate. I cannot believe what you are doing, in terms of the future projections. I want to announce for the people of Minnesota today: Not only am I a Senator for education and children, that is what I am trying to do here right now, but the Senate Finance Committee, the Republicans and too many Democrats, all of whom I love individually, have now made me a fiscal conservative. I cannot believe what we are doing. I cannot believe it. So now I would say to my colleagues: This is your choice. Can I repeat it one more time? We set aside only $120 billion of real money-- not authorizations. I don't want you to vote for authorization and go back home and say I voted for all this money for title I and I voted for all this money for everything else, when it is not real money, it is fiction. It is fiction and the Presiding Officer knows it. You set aside $120 billion, that is one-tenth of the tax cuts. So it is an easy choice, $1 for children and education for every $10 in tax cuts, and you set it aside by saying to people, couples with incomes of almost $300,000 a year: You get a tax cut of at least $8,400. What could be more reasonable? I want to make two other points, one about this overall tax cut that is before us and the other about education. My colleague from Iowa talks about the poor and helping the poor. I give credit where credit is due for a partial refundable tax credit, child credit. But can I ask this question, and I may have an amendment on this later on today: If the choice is between not covering any low-income children versus covering some low-income children, versus covering all low-income children, why aren't we covering all low-income children? Why is it that the poorest of poor children--the 10 million children who come from families with incomes under $10,000 a year--their families do not get a break at all? What in the world is going on here? My colleague comes out on the floor and says--and so will others-- ``You are violating the Budget Act.'' Why don't you tell that to my daughter Marcia who is a Spanish teacher who will have 50 students in her class next year? Why don't you tell that to my son Mark who has been teaching at an inner city school, Arlington High, in St. Paul, where so many of those students never had a break and need the additional help but they are not going to have the resources? Why don't you tell that to these children who are 7 and 8 years old and in a given year, especially in your inner city schools, they will have two or three or four teachers, and, in addition, quite often they do not have qualified teachers, and, in addition, the schools are overcrowded, and, in addition, quite often the bathrooms don't work, the plumbing doesn't work, the heating isn't adequate, the schools are too hot, and, in addition, they don't have the technology and the resources? Why don't you tell it to these children that this--because of the Senate's arcane rules--violates the Budget Act? Tell it to the children. Do you want to know something? We can do a lot of things in this Chamber of the Senate and they are reversible later on. When you rob a child of his or her childhood, it is irreversible. We are going to fully fund the title I program for children who come from low-income families 10 years from now, maybe? These 7-year-olds will be 17. It will be too late for them. You don't want to take $120 billion of real money for education? Instead, you want these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts? I am embarrassed that the Democratic Party has not fought back harder. This will be the first of many amendments I will have on this tax cut, win or lose. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I ask my colleague, that must mean I have 98 votes for it?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Montana, I certainly appreciate it. I certainly would like to debate Senators on this priority. I certainly would like to. I think this gets right to the point of values. I think this is a spiritual debate we are having. I want to know when we are going to match our rhetoric about children and education with real resources. But I do not see Senators in this Chamber, so I am assuming that this will be a win for children and education. But, for the moment, I say to my colleague, I guess what happens is we go into a quorum call and time is charged equally against both sides?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I will speak a little longer about my amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Let me summarize, in a very quiet way, for a moment, what this is about. Then let me just challenge Senators. All I am saying is, it is kind of like walking our talk. There should be 52 votes for this motion. Fifty-two Senators voted for a Harkin amendment to take $250 billion out of tax cuts. I take half of that for education. I take it by eliminating the cuts in the 39.6-percent tax bracket. That is .07 per percent of Americans; that is a couple with an income of $300,000 a year, and they still get an $8,400 tax cut. But I am saying, by not making that additional cut, you then would have $120 billion you would put aside for education. That is $1 for education and children for every $10 in tax cuts. I am saying to Senators, if you voted for the Harkin amendment, this is half that amount. I hope you will support this motion. I am saying to you, Senators, that unfortunately it is 10:55 and I cannot get anybody to debate me. But the truth of the matter is, this is historic. What we are doing in the Senate is breathtaking. The Presiding Officer, he can disagree with me. He is another one of these Senators--I feel as if I am passing out compliments--who is civil and decent and good. And people can have different viewpoints. For my own part, I think that we are doing two things. We are, A, passing a tax cut that is still ``Robin Hood in reverse,'' with still over 30 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent of the population. I remind my colleagues one more time, I give you credit for improving this bill in the Finance Committee over what the President had, but when over 30 percent of the benefits are going to the top 1 percent, and still 10 million of the poorest children in America and their families are not benefiting from a child credit, I wonder about our priorities. And B, and even more importantly--and I am sorry; in fact, I am embarrassed--the Democrats do not seem to grasp this. This will so erode our revenue base. We are talking really more about $2 trillion over the next 10 years and that there will not be the resources to invest in education and children, or the resources to invest in affordable prescription drugs, or the resources to expand health care coverage. And the list goes on and on. If you believe that when it comes to these pressing issues of people's lives there is nothing the Government can or should do, then this is one big, good, ideological victory for you. But if you believe: I came to Washington believing we could do things that would lead to the positive improvement of people's lives, and you believe there is a positive role for Government, then what we are about to do is shut it down. I cannot even begin to express my indignation about what we are doing with education. We are all for the children, and we are all for education, and we all love them, but we are not digging into our pockets and making the investment. We are going to get back to a bill really soon where the Federal Government--I am amazed conservatives are considering this--is going to tell every school district, every school, every State: You are going to test children every year, age 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and at the same time we are not interested in also having a Federal mandate backed by resources to guarantee that every one of those children will have the same opportunity to succeed. We fund the title I program at the 30- percent level. We have children--most children, many children--coming to kindergarten way behind, and yet we are not making the investment in the resources. There never was a deal before we went to this education bill that there would be the money. There still isn't any understanding. And now, Democrats, wake up and smell the coffee. We are not going to have the resources. This is a massive reversal in social policy. I am heartbroken by what we are doing, but I certainly think that at the very minimum Senators would be willing to vote for this motion. It is simple. We should not separate our lives as legislators from the words we speak. We have spoken great words about education and children. I have heard so many speeches, I have heard enough speeches to deafen all the gods. I want to know whether we are willing to invest the real money. My colleagues are going to say this is a violation of the Budget Act. Tell that to the good teachers who are trying to teach the children; tell that to the children. Tell that to kids whose childhood is precious and wonderful, and, in all too many ways, we are robbing them of that childhood. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Is it too much to ask Senators, is it too much to ask for the sake of better teachers, more teachers--by the way, there are a lot of great teachers--for the sake of having more qualified teachers, for the sake of making sure these kids get more help with reading, making sure there is more title I money for kids who come from low- income backgrounds, making sure we have the additional help for the children, especially the little children, is it too much to ask the wealthiest 0.7 percent to still get tax breaks, at least the $8,400 a year, but we would not eliminate cuts in the 39.6-percent tax bracket and instead make the investment in children and education? I grant you, the children I am talking about probably do not have the same lobbying coalitions as those who want to cut the highest tax rate. I grant you the children I am talking about and their families probably do not have the same access, probably they are not the big givers, probably they are not the investors. But one would think out of some sense of values we could at least provide the support. This whole issue of class warfare is a bogus argument. I maintain that the vast majority of people in Minnesota who have incomes around $300,000 a year would be pleased to have some tax cut, at lease $8,000 or thereabouts, but then would say, fine, we don't need any more, and if you are going to put that money into children and education, God bless you, do it. We are proud of you, Senate. I hope you will vote for the amendment. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have?