Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Mississippi--I know he has the right to the floor--could I make a request to my colleagues? I have been on the floor for several hours waiting to introduce an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that after the McCain amendment I be allowed to introduce an amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Harkin, Daschle, and Feingold be added as original cosponsors.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before proceeding, I say to the Senator from Nevada, the Democratic whip, if we have a vote at 2, I believe I can finish with my presentation on this amendment and I will be pleased to go to another amendment right after the vote if my colleague wants me to move this along.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I will do this amendment and if there is a Republican amendment next, I will then follow that next Republican amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment, again, with Senators Harkin, Daschle, and Feingold, about competitive markets. I am hoping there will be a strong, if you will, free enterprise, pro- competition vote for this amendment, especially when it comes to looking out for the interests of our producers, in particular our Nation's livestock producers. This amendment will fully fund the President's budget request for the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration, called GIPSA, funding they need to look at market concentration. What we see right now--and it is a disturbing trend in our economy and certainly a disturbing trend in the food industry--is an increasing concentration of power. We see inadequate price information both for producers and consumers. We see lack of competition. We see anticompetitive practices. Consequently, GIPSA has been asked to assume a more prominent role, as they should, in ensuring competitiveness-- that is all this amendment is about--and fairness in the livestock industry. GIPSA is conducting a growing number of investigations on market concentration in agriculture, and they should be doing just this work. The point is, they should be adequately funded to do the job. What this amendment does is ensure GIPSA has the resources to meet these additional responsibilities, and it increases funding for GIPSA-- I say to Senators and staff, Democrats and Republicans, who are listening--by a total of $3.95 million to fund these essential programs. I am going to list these programs in a moment. I recall a gathering I attended in Iowa. Senator Harkin I believe was there. Senator Grassley was there. At this gathering, we had one family farmer after another basically saying: Where is the Packers and Stockyard Administration? Why are they not involved in representing us? Where are they as we see more and more of these conglomerates taking over more and more of the market and we do not have the opportunity to compete? They should be doing their job. What we heard in return from Mike Dunn was: We will do the job, but we need the resources. That is what this amendment is about: making sure they have the resources to do the job they are supposed to do by virtue of the law of the land. What will the amendment do? It will add $1.2 million for anticompetitive behavior investigations. This is to look at what is going on in the industry and aggressively pursue especially investigations into anticompetitive activity in the livestock industry. There will be $1.3 million for rapid response teams. This will enhance GIPSA's effectiveness in addressing major investigative issues of immediate concern when it comes to anticompetitive practices or trade practice issues. It will allow for $200,000 for the hog contract library. This will be used to comply with section 22 of the fiscal year 2000 Ag appropriations bill. This is the mandatory price reporting. There will be $800,000 to examine the competitive structure of the poultry industry which will permit GIPSA to expand its activity in the poultry market to take a close look at characteristics of markets for poultry grower services. There will be $100,000 for civil rights activities which will allow GIPSA to resolve its backlog of EEO complaints and to increase emphasis on proactive efforts to maintain EEO goals and objectives. All of us are familiar with the grievances and the just cause of many African American farmers in our country. There will be $350,000 for information staff at GIPSA that will enable them to develop new educational programs which will be targeted to small and socially disadvantaged farmers and improve relations with producers. This is a modest amendment. There should be strong support for this amendment. It is all about putting some free enterprise back into the free enterprise system. It is all about being on the side of our producers. It simply says: Let's get the funding up to the administration's request. I think we should be doing much more than this, and I hope that by the end of this Congress--in fact, I do not hope, it absolutely has to happen--we will pass the Farmers and Ranchers Fair Competition Act which has been introduced by Senators Daschle and Leahy, and a number of others of us who have worked on this as well. Really, what we ought to be talking about is some legislation that makes antitrust action a reality in this country. In the food industry we need it. When I travel in the countryside--and I do quite often--the one issue on which farm organizations agree--they don't agree on many--the one issue that brings farmers and rural people together is that we need to have more competition. We need to have some antitrust action. These conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table, and they are forcing us out. I do not know why we are so slow to take up this cause. Let me give this amendment a little bit of context. In the past decade and a half, we have seen an explosion of mergers and acquisitions and anticompetitive practices with record concentration in American agriculture. The top four pork packers have increased their market share from 36 percent to 57 percent. The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32 percent to 80 percent. The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 percent to 62 percent. The market share of the top four soybean crushers has jumped from 54 percent to 80 percent. Forty-nine percent of all chicken broilers are now slaughtered by the largest four firms. The list goes on and on. The four largest grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of the elevator facilities in the country. The result of this is that you have had this surge of concentration. You have these conglomerates which have a tremendous amount of power, you have GIPSA which does not have the resources to do the job, and you have the Senate that has not passed a strong piece of legislation that calls for antitrust action. As a result of that, the farmers, everywhere they turn, don't get a fair shake. When they look to whom they buy from, it is a few large firms that dominate the market. When they look to whom they sell to, it is a few large firms that dominate the market. Everybody in this Chamber knows that if you are at an auction, you are more likely to get a good price when there are a lot of bidders. I think all of us are for competition. We need to have more competition, but we need to have a level playing field for our producers. I want to report on both the horizontal concentration, that was reflected in the statistics I mentioned, but also the ways in which we have the vertical integration. Take the pork industry. Pork packers are buying up what is called captive supply--hogs that they own or have contracted under marketing agreements. If this trend continues, you are going to see grain, soybean production--it will be basically from the very beginning, from the very point level of production, all the way to the supermarket. The problem with this kind of vertical concentration is it destroys competitive markets. Potential competitors often don't know the sale price for the goods at any point in the process. There is no price discovery--essentially no effective competition. If it continues at the current pace, we are going to basically have all the industry dominated this way. Moreover, the vertical integration stacks the deck against the farmers. In April 1999, there was a report from the Minnesota Land Stewardship Project that found: Packers' practice of acquiring captive supplies through contracts and direct ownership is reducing the number of opportunities for small- and medium-sized farmers to sell their hogs. With fewer buyers, and more captive supply, there is less competition for our independent producers. I want to make sure we can at least get this additional $3.95 million to GIPSA so they can do the job of being there on the side of producers, so they can do the job of investigating potential or real anticompetitive practices. It is a modest amendment, but it is hugely important to family farmers. Leland Swensen, president of the National Farmers Union, recently testified--he is right-- The increasing level of market concentration, with the resulting lack of competition in the marketplace, is one of the top concerns of [American] farmers and ranchers. At most farm and ranch meetings, market concentration ranks as either the first or second in priority of issues of concern. Farmers and ranchers believe that lack of competition is a key factor in the low commodity prices they are receiving. Some of these big packers are raking in record profits while our livestock producers are facing extinction. The farm/retail spread, as every Senator from every agriculture State knows, is growing wider and wider and wider, between what our producers get paid for what they produce and what consumers pay. There is a whole lot of money and a whole lot of profit that is made in the middle. I do not mind that, but I would like to see the livestock producers and our other producers in our farm States get a fair shake. If there is one thing farmers ask for more than anything else, it is a level playing field. If there is one thing they are worried about, it is this increasing concentration. We ought to be able to get this additional money to GIPSA. The vote on this amendment is all about whether or not we are willing to be there on the side of these family farmers, whether we are on the side of making sure we deal with anticompetitive practices, and whether we take their concerns seriously. One of the reasons I bring this amendment to the floor--yes, the administration asked for this additional $3.95 million. I remember the meeting in Iowa with Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin. And I remember Mike Dunn saying: Give us the money to do the job. That is true. As I have said, these conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table, and they have pushed our producers out. We have too few firms that dominate too much of the market, and we do not have enough competition. That is what this is about. I have said that. But I also want all Senators to understand that this amendment is also offered in the context of the record low prices and the record low income. To tell you the truth, the AMTA payments are the only reason some of our producers are able to continue, although those payments all too often amount to a subsidy in an inverse relationship to need, and farmers are still demanding a decent price. But the whole issue of price, the whole issue of producers getting a fair price, is highly correlated to whether or not there is going to be some competition. It is highly correlated to whether or not we are going to take antitrust action seriously. There is a reason we passed the Sherman Act in the late 1800s. There is a reason we passed the Clayton Act in the early 1900s. The reason is, to be there on the side of our producers. This amendment is a small amendment. It is a modest amendment. But I think it puts Senators on record as to whether or not we are serious about antitrust action. The health and the vitality of rural America, our communities--I say to the Presiding Officer, who knows quite a bit about agriculture, coming from the State of Illinois--is not based upon the number of acres of land that someone farms; it is not based upon the number of animals someone owns. The health and the vitality of rural America is based upon the number of family farmers who live in the community, because when family farmers live in a community, somebody is going to own the land; no question about it. We will always have an agriculture industry. We are always going to have a food industry. What is a more precious commodity than food? It is more precious than oil. The question is, How many farmers are going to live in the community that supports the schools, that supports the churches, that supports the synagogues, that supports small businesses? The farm dollar, if you are talking about a family farm, multiplies in the community where people live, where they buy--a community they care about. When you move to these conglomerates basically being in control and absentee investment, absentee ownership, when they make a profit, they don't invest it back into the community. John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs sums it up this way: Replacing mid-size farms with big farms reduces middle- class entrepreneurial opportunities in farm communities, at best replacing them with wage labor. He goes on to say: A system of economically viable, owner-operated family farms contributed more to communities than systems characterized by inequality and large numbers of farm laborers with below-average incomes and little ownership or control of productive assets. Can't we get at least a little additional funding to GIPSA so they can do the job, so they can be there on the side of our producers, so they can investigate whether or not we have monopoly practices, so they can investigate whether or not family farmers are getting a decent price, so they can investigate whether or not we have a few packers who are in collusion, who are involved in anticompetitive practices? I think we can. To provide a little more context, we are living in a time of merger mania. Joel Klein, who is doing a great job, head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, has pointed out that the value of last year's mergers equaled the combined value of all mergers from 1990 to 1996. I heard Senator McCain make part of his argument. I am not sure I agreed with all of his argument, but one of the things Senator McCain focuses on, which is fair enough, is the whole issue of money and politics. I would argue that here we have a perfect example. Pick your industry. In agriculture, I am talking about the way in which these conglomerates have controlled the market. How about the airline industry? In my State of Minnesota, we are reading every other day that Northwest might merge with American Airlines. We have already heard about U.S. Air and United. We only have about six airlines now. We might get down to three megacompanies. The question is, What is the impact on consumers and what is the impact on the employees? What is the impact on the State? I could talk about banking. I could talk about energy. I could talk about health insurance. I could talk about any number of sectors of the economy. I could talk about telecommunications. Look at what has happened since we passed that bill. Where is the protection for consumers? And with all due respect, when we talk about a key issue, the flow of information in a democracy, we don't want to have a few media conglomerates controlling almost all of the flow of information in a democracy. I am speaking about the food industry, this very modest amendment. We make policy choices. We paved the way for family farming with the Homestead Act. It was a good thing to do. We enacted parity legislation which was all about better prices, fair prices for family farmers in the 1940s. It was a good thing to do. Then we cut loan rates in the 1950s and 1960s. We passed the ``freedom to fail'' bill--I call it the ``freedom to fail'' bill--a few short years ago. It dramatically reduced prices farmers got in the marketplace. I don't think it was a very wise thing to do. Above and beyond all of that, today, what I am saying is, let's at least vote for this modest amendment. Going back to Lee Swenson's testimony, of the National Farmers Union: The remaining firms are increasing market share and political power to the point of controlling the governments that once regulated the firms. Some of the biggest corporations have gotten tax breaks or other government incentives. . . . Corporate interests have also called on the government to weaken environmental standards and immigrant labor protections in order to allow them to reduce production costs. The bigger these agribusinesses get, the more influence they have over our policy choices. The bigger they get, the more money they can spend on political campaigns. The bigger they get, the more lobbyists they can hire. The bigger they get, the more likely they are to be named special U.S. trade representatives, as is the case with the CEO of Monsanto. The bigger they get, the more likely public officials will be to confuse their interests with the public interest, even if they don't already do that. And the bigger they get, the more weight they will pull in the media. It is a vicious cycle. These conglomerates have entirely too much political power. Their overwhelming size makes it too easy for them to dictate policies and to get even bigger. There is something we can do in the short term. That is what this amendment is about. We can provide GIPSA with adequate funding to conduct on-the-ground investigations of market concentration. This is a modest amendment. We ought to have 100 votes for this amendment. Over the longer term, we ought to do more. We ought to focus on how we can enhance the bargaining power of our producers. We ought to figure out how we can be there on the side of producers, on the side of farmers, on the side of ranchers, on the side of rural America, and on the side of consumers. I look forward to bringing a significant piece of antitrust legislation that Senator Daschle has introduced to the floor of the Senate and having a major debate about what kind of antitrust action makes sense. Referring to the minimum wage, in many ways that is what family farmers are saying, too. We have families in the country who are saying: We want to be able to make enough of a wage that we can support our families. We have family farmers who are saying: We want to be able to get at least a decent price so that we can afford to support our families. We should be sensitive to that concern. We should do no less than to at least pass this very modest amendment. This amendment would increase the fund for GIPSA by $3.95 billion to fund essential programs. The offset comes out of ERS. I think this vote is a vote that is critically important in farm country. It is also a critically important vote for Senators who are on the side of consumers. I hope we will have strong support for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I ask exactly how we are proceeding here?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as soon as we make a decision on the Harkin amendment, I be allowed to offer an amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to Senators at the beginning of my remarks, and I say to my colleague from Mississippi, I am going to try to be brief; I don't intend to speak for a long period of time. I want to summarize this amendment for Members of the Senate, and I want to talk about why I think this is one of the most important amendments I have ever brought up and why I would like to have a vote on it or a commitment that this stays in conference committee. This amendment would provide a little additional funding, $500,000, to the Food and Nutrition Service. This is all from within ERS. These are some good people. I am calling for the Food and Nutrition Service to be out in the field and to do some important policy evaluation for us about why it is that in the last half decade or so we have seen about a 30-percent decline in food stamp participation. There is not a 30-percent decline in poverty. As a matter of fact, I am sad to say on the floor of the Senate that there has actually been an increase in the poverty of the poorest children in homes which have poverty-level income. They can evaluate why it is that one out of every ten households is ``food insecure,'' some 36 million, 37 million, and 40 percent of them children. And with a major safety net program for children, we can make sure that children are not malnourished and don't go hungry. We have seen a dramatic decline in participation. What is going on? We are the decisionmakers. We are the policymakers. Let's have an honest evaluation because the background to this program goes something like this: In the mid and late sixties--I remember I was a student at the University of North Carolina when these studies first came out. There were a series of studies and exposes. There was a CBS documentary--Hunger U.S.A., I think--in 1968. We saw children with distended bellies. We read about and heard about children who were suffering with scurvy and rickets. We could not believe that in America we had widespread malnutrition and hunger. We don't talk about this enough on the floor of the Senate. Senator Cochran from Mississippi--I am not trying to ingratiate myself to him--actually is one of the Members in the Senate who has been most focused on food and nutrition programs. It was Richard Nixon, a Republican President, who said we have to make some changes on this issue, and whether or not we are going to have some kind of safety net. It won't be Heaven on Earth. It won't be perfect. But we will at least make sure that we try to get some help to these families. We are going to make sure this is a Federal program. Do you want to know something, colleagues? This is public policy that has worked because we dramatically reduced, up until recently, the extent of malnutrition and hunger in the country. What is happening now with this program? The Food and Nutrition Service would go out in the field. They would study the barriers faced by families with limited access to the Food Stamp Program. What are the reasons for the dramatic decline in participation in the Food Stamp Program? On-site review out in the field completed within 180 days a report and sent it to us. The food stamp rolls have plummeted over the last several years. Since April of 1996, nearly 8.6 million people have dropped off the food stamp rolls and more than 1 million last year alone. If this was because of a reduction in poverty, I wouldn't worry about it. But that is not what it is. Of the 36 million people living in food-insecure households --I hate that language. They live in homes where they are either going hungry or they are malnourished. Of 14.5 million Americans, 40 percent are children. A study by Second Harvest, the Nation's largest domestic hunger relief organization, found that more than one out of every three persons served by food banks are children. By the way, in almost 40 percent of the households that rely on emergency food assistance, there was at least one adult who was employed. You have a lot of people in our country who are working poor people. They are eligible for this assistance. It makes a real difference to them and their children. But we have seen this dramatic decline in participation. I think we need to know why. A report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors shows similar results. It shows there has been a dramatic increase--can you believe it--in the demand for emergency food assistance in major cities across the United States in the last 15 years. Can I make that clear? We have a booming economy. We are talking about all of this affluence. There are people who spend $10,000 or $15,000 on one vacation, and the Conference of Mayors says we are seeing a dramatic demand in the need for emergency food assistance. Catholic Charities, the Nation's largest private human service, reported providing emergency food services to more than 5.6 million, more than 1 million of whom were children. When we are talking about food pantries, when we are talking about Catholic Charities, when we are talking about Second Harvest, when we are talking about all of these relief organizations saying there has been this increase in demand and saying that many of the citizens they help are children, something is wrong. Something is wrong with our priorities. No citizen in America should be hungry today. No child should be hungry. I don't have the statistics. But I am guessing. It is just intuition. It is what I have seen with my own eyes. There are also significant numbers of elderly people who are malnourished. The Food Research and Action Center, which I believe has done the very best work in this area, reports that more than 1.2 million people left the food stamp rolls between October 1998 and October 1999. Again, 8.6 million people have left the Food Stamp Program since April of 1996. Senators, here is the statistic that is jarring. According to the USDA, more than one-third of those who are eligible for the Food Stamp Program are not receiving benefits. We had a dramatic decline of about a 30-percent drop over the last 4 years, and USDA itself comes out and says that one-third of those who are eligible are not receiving any benefits at all. A report released by the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Supports, another really good organization and good coalition, found that the number of poor people receiving food stamps has declined by 37 percent--more than 10 million people since 1994--although the number of people living in poverty has not declined anywhere close to the same rate. In 1995, for every 100 poor people in the country, 71 were using food stamps. In 1998, for every 100 poor people, only 54 were using food stamps. A General Accounting Office report recently released found that ``food stamp participation has dropped faster than related economic indicators would predict.'' An Urban Institute report found that ``about two-thirds of the families who left the Food Stamp Program were still eligible for food stamps.'' A July 1999 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by Mathematica Policy Research, Incorporated, identified lack of client information as a barrier to participation. In other words, people are not being told that they are eligible. They are not being told that they can help their children by participating in this food nutrition program. Food stamps can mean the difference between whether or not the child has an adequate diet. Food stamps can make a difference between whether or not a child goes hungry. Food stamps can make a difference as to whether or not little children ages 1, 2 and 3 get adequate nutrition for the development of their brain. Food stamps can make a difference in terms of whether or not a child goes to school with an empty stomach and not able to learn. Food stamps can make a difference as to whether or not a child can do well in school and, therefore, well in life. I am speaking with some indignation. I know that we don't have a lot of debate on these issues. But this amendment is relevant to this bill. Food stamps can determine whether or not a child is able to concentrate and able to bond with other children, and whether a child can do well on these standardized tests that we are giving. We are given all these standardized tests the kids have to pass--if they fail, they are held back as young as age 8--but we have not made sure that children who could benefit from food nutrition programs so they do not go hungry, so they are not malnourished, are able to benefit. I just can't believe that during a thriving stock market, with record economic performance, with record affluence, with record wealth, with record surpluses, we have seen over the last half a decade a 33-percent or more decline in food stamp participation, and we have today in the United States of America 37 million Americans who are ``food insecure,'' 40 percent of them children. I told my friend, Senator Cochran, I would be relatively brief. I could go on and on. About a year ago, I brought this amendment to the floor. The Senator from Mississippi, who cares about these issues, accepted the amendment. It was knocked out in conference committee. It makes me furious. What in the world is the matter with the Congress that we are not even willing to let the Food and Nutrition Service make a policy evaluation? Why it is, with the most important safety net program for children in America to make sure they are not malnourished and make sure they do not go hungry, we are not even willing to support that? I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I hope there will be a strong vote for this amendment. I hope and I pray that we can keep this in conference because we should do this evaluation; we should get a report; we should know what is going on. This is important. This is all about whether our citizens, people in the country, are malnourished or not, whether they go hungry or not, whether children have a chance or not, whether we provide the help that elderly people need. We are not doing a good job. Something is wrong. I think if we get the study done--I don't know why we can't--then we will no longer be in a position of not knowing or not wanting to know and we will take some action. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Before my colleague goes further, I was referring to this specific topic.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent I may send a technical correction to the desk. A sentence was written on the wrong line. I ask unanimous consent I modify the amendment. This is technical.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Mississippi that I accept what he said in very good faith about the conference committee, and if he can, in his wisdom and experience, strengthen this amendment, I am all for that. When he tells me he will do everything he can to advocate for this amendment, I accept his word. There is no question about it. The second point I wish to make is just to clarify, or make the Record clear, that my indignation is not so much that ``my'' amendment was taken out in conference committee. I don't really care about it being my amendment. What bothers me, what troubles me, I say to Senator Cochran, is that--and I cited about seven or eight different studies, good studies done by good people--we do have before us a very important challenge. We have seen this dramatic decline. We know how important this program can be. We are getting reports that there are a lot of families eligible who are not participating. We are getting the reports from all the religious communities that the use of the food shelves are going up. We are getting reports from teachers in schools telling us kids are coming to school malnourished. So I am saying I find it a little hard to understand how in conference last year certain folks, whoever they were, just took this out. They were not interested in knowing. I think we ought to care about this. I insist we do. I know the Senator from Mississippi does. I think we will get a strong vote in the Senate and that will be good. The Senate will be strongly on record and I hope we can carry this in conference. I thank the Senator for his support. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Texas, I think I will take about 3 or 4 minutes; that's all. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues from North Dakota. I simply want to put it in personal terms because I think that is the way most Senators understand things. About 2 weeks ago, I was visiting with friends. When I drove up, there were pickup trucks as far as you could see. The farmers were there because of flooding, again, for the seventh year in a row. In my State, 350,000 acres of farmland have been destroyed. You could just look at the faces of people and see the pain. This happened in June when we were dealing with the MILCON bill. We were not able to assess the damage yet. Look, whatever the vehicle is and however we do this, I thank Senator Cochran for understanding what we are trying to do, and I hope--this amendment has been withdrawn, but I hope we do come together as Senators to support this. This is not just about North Dakota or Minnesota; it also is about a lot of States in the South. There, it is the opposite problem; it is drought. I have only been here--I guess it is a long time--9 years. That is not as long as some of my colleagues. The way I feel about the Senate is we do become a community. Maybe we will do it a different way, but we are a community in the sense that it is, there but for the grace of God go I. Whenever Senators come to the floor and say: My God, it's been tornadoes, it's been hurricanes, its floods, its droughts and people are hurting and people need help, I do not hesitate to vote for other Senators and other people in other States. That is what this is about. This amendment has been withdrawn, but the question before us will continue to be a question before us. I certainly hope that, working with Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, we will be able to get the support. I will finish this way: This is not like how do you come to the floor of the Senate and sneak something through or there is something that you are doing that is some flagrant special interest favor. The only special interests here are a whole bunch of good people, who are going through a living hell, who need some help. What we are trying to do is get that help for those people. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to once again draw attention to the continuing war in Chechnya. This war has raged for too long. The war in Chechnya from 1994-1996 left over 80,000 civilians dead, and the Foreign Relations Committee has received credible evidence that the current war has again resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians and the displacement of well over 250,000 others. The committee also received credible evidence of widespread looting, summary executions, detentions, denial of safe passage to fleeing civilians, torture and rape, committed by Russian soldiers. Colleagues, regardless of the politics of this war, this kind of behavior is unacceptable. War has rules, and the evidence and testimony the Foreign Relations Committee received raises serious doubts as to whether or not the Russian Federation is playing by those rules. Much of the evidence we received showed clear violations of international humanitarian law, including the well-established Geneva Convention. Tomorrow is the official opening of Group of Eight Summit in Japan. The President must use this opportunity to relay our serious concerns with the actions of the Russian Government in Chechnya. Let's remember, what was the Group of Seven and became the G-8 with the inclusion of the Russian Federation, is an association of democratic societies with advanced economies. Although Russia is not yet a liberal democracy or an advanced economy, it was invited to take part in this group to encourage its democratic evolution. Today as I watch Russia refuse to initiate a political dialogue with the Chechen people, and continue to deny international humanitarian aid organizations and international human rights monitors access to Chechnya, I must question that evolution. I am disappointed that the Group of Eight will not include the situation in Chechnya on is formal agenda, but I am hopeful that the President will voice our serious concerns about Russia's conduct in Chechnya and take concrete action to demonstrate our concern, during bilateral talks with President Putin. The United States should demand that the Russian Federation push for a negotiated, just settlement to this conflict. The conflict will not be resolved by military means and the Russian Federation should initiate immediately a political dialogue with a cross-section of representatives of the Chechen people, including representatives of the democratically elected Chechen authorities. The United States should remind the Russian Federation of the requests the Council of Europe for an immediate cease-fire and initiation of political dialogue, and of Russia's obligation to that institution and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. And colleagues, the President must also remind the Russian Federation government of its accountability to the international community and take steps to demonstrate that its conduct will effect its standing in the world community. This body and the U.N. Human Rights Commission has spoken out demanding the Russian government allow into Chechnya humanitarian agencies and international human rights monitors, including U.N. Special Rapporteur, yet the Russian government has not done so. This body and the international community has also demanded that the Russian Federation undertake systematic, credible, transparent and exhaustive investigations into allegations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Chechnya, and to initiate, where appropriate, prosecutions against those accused. But again, the Russian Federation has not done so. During his meeting with President Putin, the President is expected to discuss economic reform in Russia and regional stability issues. President Clinton must relay to the Russian President that Russia's conduct in Chechnya is not only in violation of international humanitarian law, but that it threatens Russia's ability for economic reform and creates instability in the region. And President Clinton must make clear to President Putin that while the United States fully supports the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, and is fully aware of the evidence of grave human right violations committed by soldiers on both sides of the conflict, we strongly condemn Russia's conduct of the war in Chechnya and will continue to publicly voice our opposition to it. President Clinton should tell President Putin that the United States will take into consideration Russian conduct in Chechnya in any request for further rescheduling of Russia's international debt and U.S. assistance, until it allows full and unimpeded access into Chechnya humanitarian agencies and international human rights monitors, in accordance with international law. Colleagues, the war in Chechnya has caused enormous suffering for both the Chechen and Russian people, and the reports of the grave human rights violations committed there, on both sides of the conflict, continue daily. We must raise our concerns about the war in Chechnya at every chance and in every forum possible, including the G-8 Summit. I remind you again that the Group of Eight is an association of democratic societies with advanced economies--the Group of Seven invited the Russian Federation to encourage its democratic evolution. It is not yet a liberal democracy or an advanced economy. By not taking concrete steps during this Summit to demonstrate to the Russian Federation that its conduct is unacceptable for a democratic nation, is to condone it. I fear we have already put given human rights a back seat to economic issues by not placing Russian conduct in Chechnya on the formal agenda of the G-8 Summit. I hope that will not be the outcome of our bilateral talks with Russia in Japan.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I want to talk about an issue that is of the utmost importance: Health Security. First I want to talk about the problem: Health insecurity. Then I want to talk about the solution: The Health Security for All Americans Act. And finally I want people around the country to hear what they can do to wake up Congress and make Health Security for All Americans a reality. This year has been a hard one for me. Two months ago, we buried one of my dear friends, Mike Epstein. Mike's sons came to be with him for the last few weeks of his struggle with cancer. Devoted sons, they spoke glowingly about their father at a memorial service for him in the Capitol. As any of you who has sat with a dying parent knows, emotions overflow, coping is difficult, and the grief is profound. The last thing a son or daughter, a parent or spouse, needs is to have the additional burden of wondering where will the next dollar for ever mounting health care bills come from; to worry about going into debt; to worry about going bankrupt because of a loved ones health care needs. Mike's sons did not have to worry about that because Mike had health care coverage as good as Congress gets. The wife of my health policy advisor, John Gilman, battled cancer for two and a half years before succumbing one month ago. She had required innumerable sessions of radiation therapy, plus chemotherapy and surgery. John had his hands full with work plus taking care of his wife, both physically and emotionally. It is draining, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if John and his wife, June, had no health insurance. John didn't have to worry about how to pay for the next medical bill because John and his wife had health care coverage as good as Congress gets. People do get ill. As hard as we try and as much as we pray, we can't always cure them. But we certainly can make sure they all have access to high quality, affordable care with dignity. There is no reason why all Americans can't have health insurance as good as everyone of us who serves in the United States Senate. The idea of procuring health security for all Americans is not a new one. Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized the need for universal health care in the 1930s when we were in the depths of the depression; Harry Truman fought for it in the 1940s when the troops came home from World War II; John Kennedy envisioned it in the midst of the cold war; Richard Nixon had it high on his agenda before events overtook his Presidency. What these 20th century Presidents all understood is that there is a basic human drive for good health, and the good health of the American people is what drives this country and its economy. By 1992 it was far past due for us to recognize that all Americans should have a basic right to quality affordable health care. We had the opportunity in 1993 and 1994 to confer that right on to all of our people--and we lost it, because of differences and failures to compromise, and obstructionists and nay sayers, and failing to keep our eye on the ball: Universal, quality, affordable health care for every American. I began introducing bills to provide universal health care in this country shortly after I arrived in the Senate in 1991. Back then people were aware of the problems of the uninsured--it wasn't being swept under the rug. Do you remember back in 1992, we were coming out of a recession, unemployment was at 7.5 percent, the national debt was increasing each year and 36 million Americans were uninsured, and everyone was talking about some form of health insurance for all. Eight years later, we're told the economy's humming along, unemployment is the lowest its been in 30 years, and there is a budgetary surplus. But despite the fact that there are 45 million Americans without health insurance--10 million more than there were 10 years ago--nobody in Washington is talking seriously about doing anything about it. Incremental change may keep some people from losing their insurance, and may insure some people who would otherwise be uninsured, but incrementalism has not stopped the steady rise in the number of uninsured in America which will soar to 55 million people by 2008. We need to change that. I don't think the fact that 140 million Americans own stocks today should make us forget that 45 million Americans don't have health insurance. And that millions more can't make ends meet because their health insurance is simply too expensive. Make no mistake about it: Not having health insurance has its consequences. And I know some of you know it personally too well. There are some myths out there about not having health insurance that need to be debunked: The first myth is that the uninsured can easily get the care they need. But the fact is: Uninsured Americans needlessly suffer because they don't have access to the care they need. For example, the uninsured are four times more likely to go without needed medical care and to delay seeking care; and are up to four times more likely to experience an avoidable hospitalization and emergency hospital care. The uninsured are more likely to be in fair or poor health and have a higher probability of in-hospital death than the privately insured. The second myth is that the lack of health insurance is usually a temporary condition and that most people get their coverage back quickly. But the fact is otherwise: Nearly 60 percent of people who are uninsured have been uninsured for at least two years. Or put another way: 6 out of 10 people who lose their health insurance this month will still be uninsured in July 2002! Employers used to do more to help assure their workers of coverage. In 1985, nearly two-thirds of businesses with 100 or more workers paid the full cost of health coverage. Last year only one-fourth of businesses did. In 1988, employers asked workers to pay on average 20 percent of the cost through payroll deductions. By 1998, they had raised the average worker's share to 27 percent. Three-fourths of the working uninsured are not offered or eligible for any coverage through their workplace. The third myth is that most people don't have health insurance because they are not working. But the fact is: 75 percent of uninsured Americans hold down full-time jobs or are the dependents of someone who does, and nine out of ten come from working families. What's also a fact is that low wage workers frequently aren't offered insurance at all through their employment or if they are, it is at an unaffordable price. The fourth myth is that most people who don't have insurance could afford it but just choose not to buy it. But the fact is: The high cost of health insurance premiums is the main reason that half the uninsured don't have health insurance. Only 3 percent of people without insurance say the most important reason is because they don't think they need it. Going without health insurance means living in poorer health. Most uninsured adults have no regular source of health care. Most postpone getting care. Three in ten go without needed medical care. A quarter forego getting the medicine they need because they cannot afford to fill their medical prescriptions. Uninsured children are 30 percent more likely to fall behind on well-child care and 80 percent more likely to never have routine care at all. The uninsured are three to four times more likely to have problems getting the health care they feel the need. Uninsured children are at least 70 percent more likely not to get medical care for common conditions--like asthma--that if left untreated can lead to more serious health problems. Uninsured Americans are more likely to end up hospitalized for conditions--like uncontrolled diabetes--that they could have avoided with better health care. In the end, uninsured patients are more likely to die while hospitalized than privately insured patients with the same health problems. Partly because they are less likely to get regular mammograms, uninsured women are nearly 50 percent more likely to die of breast cancer. Our system takes its toll in senseless, random pain and suffering. Without insurance, the medical bills mount quickly. More than one in three uninsured adults have problems paying their medical bills. The uninsured are three times more likely to have problems with their medical bills than the insured. Eight out of ten uninsured people receive absolutely no reduced charge or free health services. The crushing weight of bankruptcy looms on the horizon. One out of four people filing for bankruptcy identified an illness or injury as a major reason for filing; 1 out of 3 had substantial medical bills; and almost 50 percent had both. Even with insurance, low- and middle-income families frequently find themselves in a financial straight jacket. Families with annual incomes of $30,000 or less are spending an inordinate, unaffordable share of their income on health care expenses. And the average family with an income under $10,000 is paying well over 20 percent of its annual income on health care costs. These families can least afford to make that kind of payment. For families with annual incomes of $30,000 or more, the average amount of that income spent on premiums, deductibles and co-pays drops to below 5 percent on average. But these are just averages: many families at every income level spend more than 10 percent of their family income on health care, especially if someone in the family has a serious illness. That is not affordable. That is not fair. Since coming to the Senate, my number one priority has been achieving universal, affordable, comprehensive, quality care for all Americans. That is why I am proud to be introducing today the Health Security for All Americans Act. Let me digress and tell you how I arrived at this legislation. When I was first elected to the Senate and Bill Clinton was elected president two years later, I believed the political winds and tides were aligned for a decade of progressive change for America. I thought I had been elected at just the right time to be a part of this change. When President Clinton, in his State of the Union speech, announced he would veto any health care legislation that did not provide universal coverage, that every citizen must be covered, I jumped to my feet and cheered. This was why I came to Washington, to make this kind of change, and this was a fight I thought we could win. But I had some quick learning to do. When I spoke about my interest in a ``single-payer'' health care plan, similar to the Canadian system where doctors and hospitals remain in the private sector, but where there is just one insurer or payer, I was told by a senior colleague that my plan might be the best proposal. ``But it does not have a chance. The insurance industry hates it and it will go nowhere. It is just not realistic.'' I was completely disillusioned. I could not accept then, and I do not accept now, the proposition that even before the American people have the opportunity to be informed or included, a good proposal is ``dead on arrival'' because the insurance industry opposes it. That isn't supposed to happen in a representative democracy! In spite of the advice, I did introduce the single payer plan with Jim McDermott, a congressman and physician from the state of Washington. I thought first you start with the most desirable, and later on in the process you'll find out what is politically feasible. I refused to admit defeat before we had even begun to fight. And I was hoping that our legislation would pull the debate in a more progressive direction. What happened was just the opposite. The trillion dollar health care industry, led by the insurance companies, went on the attack, not against our plan which ``wasn't realistic'' but against the President's plan which ``was''. ``Harry and Louise'' ads cried out against the horrors of ``government medicine.'' Intensive and expensive lobbying efforts expounded on the same theme. Media coverage, which should have been about the nuts and bolts of different proposals shifted now to focus on strategy rather than substance and head counts rather than hard information. So ordinary citizens no longer had a source of knowledge to form opinions and inform their elected leaders. But the problems were not limited to the insurance lobby and the media. The only way we could have beaten the health care industry would have been with dramatic and effective citizen politics. It never happened. Progressives didn't organize a constituency to fight for health care reform, and the Administration didn't have the political will to stand up to powerful interests and therefore never asked the American people to take on this fight. They tried to win with ``inside politics,'' cutting deals and making compromises with different economic interests. With each accommodation to private power, the President's plan became hopelessly complicated. As a constituent told me at the time, ``How can you be for something you don't understand?'' What started as a noble effort by the President to fill a crucial national need became instead an object of derision. Over the years, as I traveled around the country talking about the need for Universal Health Care and the Single Payer model, I found people turning off--not to the need for health insurance for all, but to the specific mechanism I favored. They wanted universal health care, but they didn't want a national single payer system or they didn't think one was possible here, so they stopped listening. The mood of the country has changed since the early 1990s. In 1990, there were 34 million uninsured. Ten years later, today, there are 45 million, and the number is growing by 100,000 people per month. Numerous polls show that the large majority of Americans want universal affordable comprehensive health care coverage and that they are willing to pay higher taxes for everyone to be covered. The people and the States are ahead of the Federal politicians on this issue. The people want a big change; not an incremental change. In Massachusetts and Washington state, people are pushing for ballot referendums in the fall on universal coverage. Massachusetts and Maryland have already received commissioned cost studies of alternative universal coverage plans. California this past fall legislated a task force to investigate options for universal coverage. Governor Howard Dean (D) of VT (also a physician), whose state presently covers 93.5 percent of its citizens, says it well: ``It is my view that health insurance ought to be universal, the right of every citizen in Vermont.'' And there is bipartisan support in Vermont. ``Health care is not a partisan issue in Vermont,'' state Sen. John Bloomer (R) said, adding that ``it's a bipartisan goal to expand health care access and affordability.'' The Health Security for All Americans Act is a plan for a big change. It builds on the momentum going on in the states of this great Nation. So I decided that rather than trying to tell people how I thought the system should work, what I needed to do was first, to set out what I have found are the common goals of the American people: universal affordable comprehensive health coverage; and second to provide federal matching funds for each state to reach those goals in the way that best fits the needs of that state. So, let me tell you about the Health Security for All Americans Act. First, it is based on the premise that every American--not just everyone in this chamber, but every American--is entitled to have health care coverage as good as the Congress gets. Every Federal employee has that right. Why shouldn't every other American? Second, it is based on the premise that good health care must be affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep their bodies fixed. From my experience traveling around the country, Americans all across the income spectrum are willing to be responsible for an affordable fair share of the cost of coverage and care, and a growing number of polls show that a majority of Americans are willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans will have health coverage. Under the Health Security for All Americans Act, a family's financial responsibilities for health care is based on a percentage of family income. At the lowest end of the income scale, families would be responsible for no more than one-half of 1 percent of family income, so they can have quality health care, and a roof over their head, and 3 square meals a day. While at the higher end of the income scale, families would be responsible for no more than 5 percent or 7 percent of family income. For example, under the Health Security for All Americans Act, a family of four with an annual income of $25,000 would be responsible for no more than $11 a month in total health care costs, while a family of four with $50,000 in annual income would have the security of knowing that its total out-of-pocket health care spending (premiums and cost sharing) could not exceed 5 percent of family income or $2500 per year. Third, it's based on the premise that you have to have access to care when you or your family needs it. That is why the Health Security for All Americans Act includes the Norwood-Dingell Patient Bill of Rights that has been endorsed by over 300 health care organizations. Fourth, it's based on the premise that good health care delivery doesn't just happen. It depends on a well trained, well compensated health care workforce that doesn't have to constantly worry about where the next dollar is coming from. And I am referring to doctors and nurses and orderlies and home health workers, and nursing home workers--all health care workers. If we are going to deliver humane dignified health care to everyone in this country, we need to start by treating the health care workforce with dignity and respect and that starts with affordable health care for all workers. That is why the Health Security for All Americans Act includes health care quality, patient safety, and workforce standards. My experience has taught me that Americans agree with these premises. They want high quality, affordable health care as good as Congress gets, but they are not sure the best way to get there. That is why the Health Security for All Americans Act is a federal state partnership that says here is what Americans want; you--the states--design the plan you want to get your state there; and we the federal government will provide the majority of the funds you need to reach that goal in the manner you chose. States that submit plans early and achieve universal coverage are rewarded with increased federal dollars for their efforts. But all states must have plans in force within four years and coverage for all their residents within five years. States could reach these goals in a variety of ways: with an employer mandate, with a combination of public and private initiatives, with single payer, or some other method. I think this is a good approach because it allows the states flexibility, but it clearly sets out a fair and just goal: Universal coverage; comprehensive benefits as good as Congress gets; quality care guaranteed with patient protections; real income protections; and honoring of health care workers. I am proud today to be introducing the Health Security for All Americans Act and I am proud that this legislation has the backing and support of the Service Employees International Union, America's largest health care union. To my colleagues I say, together we can put universal health care back on the front burner where it belongs. We all know that in 1994, the effort to bring health care coverage to all Americans failed. All of us have heard the reasons why. But what we haven't answered is why did we give up when we knew this was the right thing to do? Why have we become so timid? Why have we only been willing to take half steps? We must not shrink from the task at hand! America's doctors and nurses know how to cure disease better than anywhere else in the world. Well, now it is time to treat America's worst malady--45 million uninsured Americans, and millions more underinsured Americans who are spending far too much of their monthly pay check on health care costs. Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' All the doctors and all the nurses and all the other health care providers in America cannot solve this problem nor right this injustice, but we in the Congress can. This is a problem that isn't going away on its own, but there is a solution. So to my colleagues, I say, ``Join me in sponsoring the Health Security for All Americans Act.'' And to members of the American public who are listening, I ask you to join thousands of your fellow citizens who have already written to Members of Congress, and call and write your Senators and Representatives and ask them to join in bringing quality, affordable health care coverage to all Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to speak about my colleague, Senator Coverdell. I know other Senators have. I absolutely have nothing rehearsed. There are many Senators who will speak about Senator Coverdell probably in a more profound and moving way than I can. There is one moment I want to remember about Senator Coverdell because this small story tells a large story. We had had a major debate about the Colombia aid package. Senator Coverdell and I were in a debate. We did not agree. It was a pretty good debate back and forth. I know from time to time during the debate I would reach over and touch his hand and say something to the effect: I just cannot believe you said this; this is wrong--something like that. At the end of the debate, I said, because I believed it and believe it: Senator Coverdell is a really good Senator. He smiled and touched my hand and said: Senator Wellstone is a really good Senator. I do not know if the latter part is true, but the point is that is the way he was. That is the kind of Senator he was. We talk about civility. He was just a beautiful person. I really enjoyed him. We need a lot of Senators like Senator Coverdell: Paul, you are wrong on the issues but you are a really good person. The Senate has lost a wonderful person and a wonderful Senator, and the United States of America has lost a wonderful person and a wonderful Senator. As a Senator from Minnesota, I send my love to Paul's family. I will not forget Paul Coverdell. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be involved in working on this legislation with the Senator from Vermont and other legislation with Senator Dorgan. To my colleague from Utah, if we read the amendment carefully--all colleagues who are going to vote--we are very clear on protections. If safeguards are not in place, the drugs cannot be reimported. That is clear language. These are some of the protections: strict FDA oversight; proof of FDA approval of imported medicines; only licensed pharmacists and wholesalers can import medicines for retail sale; importers will have to meet requirements for handling as strict as those already in place for manufacturers; lab testing to screen out counterfeits; lab testing to ensure purity, potency, and safety of medications. It is all clear. I have a letter from the National Community Pharmacists which is in favor of this exact concept of our pharmacists and wholesalers being able to reimport these drugs so our consumers can afford it. The only protection we don't have in this amendment is protection for the pharmaceutical industry to continue to make excessive profits. I quote from Fortune magazine: Whether you gauge profitability by median return on revenues, assets, or equity, pharmaceuticals had a Viagra kind of year. We are talking about an industry making enormous profits, profits as a percentage of revenue up around 18.6 percent. We have all the protection for consumers. We just don't want to protect the pharmaceutical company from being able to gouge consumers. People in Minnesota and in Alabama and in Vermont and in North Dakota are saying: Why can't we have the trade? Why can't we have the competition? Why can't our pharmacists and wholesalers reimport these drugs back to us so we can get the drugs we need for ourselves and our families at a price we can afford? This is a real simple amendment. You are on the side of consumers, you are on the side of real competition, or you are on the side of the pharmaceutical industry. On this one, Senators have to be on the side of consumers. I am glad we finally have the chance to bring up legislation that corrects the injustice that finds American consumers the least likely of any in the industrialized world to be able to afford drugs manufactured by the American pharmaceutical industry because of the unconscionable prices the industry charges only here in the United States. When I return to Minnesota which I do frequently, I meet with many constituents, but none with more compelling stories than senior citizens struggling to make ends meet because of the high cost of prescription drugs--life-saving drugs that are not covered under the Medicare program. Ten or twenty years ago these same senior citizens were going to work everyday--in the stores, and factories, and mines in Minnesota--earning an honest paycheck, and paying their taxes without protest. Now they wonder, how can this government--their government-- stand by, when the medicines they need are out of reach. But it is not just that medicare does not cover these drugs. The unfairness which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated of course by the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States--the same drugs that can be purchased for frequently half the price in Canada or Mexico or Europe. These are the exact same drugs, manufactured in the exact same facilities with the exact same safety precautions. A year ago, most Americans did not know that the exact same drugs are for sale at half the price in Canada. Today, you can bet the pharmaceutical industry wishes no one knew it. But the cat is out of the bag--and it is time for Congress to right these inequities. All the legislators speaking today have heard the first-hand stories from our constituents--in Minnesota, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington state--constituents who are justifiably frustrated and discouraged when they can't afford to buy prescription drugs that are made in the United States--unless they go across the border to Canada where those same drugs, manufactured in the same facilities are available for about half the price. Senior citizens have lost their patience in waiting for answers--and so have I. Driving to Canada every few months to buy prescription drugs at affordable prices isn't the solution; it is a symptom of how broken parts of our health care system are. Americans regardless of party have a fundamental belief in fairness--and know a rip-off when they see one. It is time to end that rip-off. While we can be proud of both American scientific research that produces new miracle cures and the high standards of safety and efficacy that we expect to be followed at the FDA, it is shameful that America's most vulnerable citizens--the chronically ill and the elderly--are being asked to pay the highest prices in the world here in the U.S. for the exact same medications manufactured here but sold more cheaply overseas. That is why I introduced with Senator Dorgan the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, and with Senator Jeffords the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act, two bills which will amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow American pharmacists and distributors to import prescription drugs into the United States as long as the drugs meet FDA's strict safety standards. Pharmacists and distributors will be able to purchase these drugs--often manufactured right here in the U.S.--at lower prices overseas and then pass the huge savings along to American consumers. What these bills do is to address the absurd situation by which American consumers are paying substantially higher prices for their prescription drugs than are the citizens of Canada, and the rest of the industrialized world. These bills do not create any new federal programs. Instead they use principles frequently cited in both Houses of the Congress--principles of free trade and competition--to help make it possible for American consumers to purchase the prescription drugs they need. Now we have the chance to adopt an amendment that includes the best of both those bills. And the need is clear. A recent informal survey by the Minnesota Senior Federation on the price of six commonly used prescription medications showed that Minnesota consumers pay, on average, nearly double (196%) that paid by their Canadian counterparts. These excessive prices apply to drugs manufactured by U.S. pharmaceutical firms, the same drugs that are sold for just a fraction of the U.S. price in Canada and Europe. Pharmacists could sell prescription drugs for less here in the United States, if they could buy and import these same drugs from Canada or Europe at lower prices than the pharmaceutical companies charge here at home. Now, however, Federal law allows only the manufacturer of a drug to import it into the U.S. Thus American pharmacists and wholesalers must pay the exorbitant prices charged by the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. market and pass along those high prices to consumers. It is time to stop protecting the pharmaceutical industry's outrageous profits-- and they are outrageous. 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. Those record profits are no surprise to America's senior citizens because they know where those profits come from--they come from their own pocketbooks. It is time to end the price gouging. We need legislation that can assure our Senior Citizens and all Americans that safe and affordable prescription medications at last will be as available in the United States of America as they are in all the other countries of the industrialized world. This amendment which I am introducing along with Senators Jeffords and Dorgan accomplishes that end. And contrary to the campaign of false information being promoted by the pharmaceutical industry, the Amendment includes all the safety precautions needed to protect the American public. This amendment includes the specific protections--which were not included in the House-passed amendments--to make sure we are not sacrificing safety for price. The only things that are not protected in this amendment are the excessive profits of the pharmaceutical industry. My job as a United States Senator is not to protect those profits but to protect the people. Colleagues, please join in and support this thoughtful and necessary amendment that will help make prescription drugs affordable to the American people.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.