Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I actually would like to comment on her point in two ways. First of all, let me point out, right now the total exemption for most estates that include a family-owned business is $1.3 million in 2000. That is what it has gone up to. A couple can exempt up to $2.6 million of an estate that includes a family-owned business or farm. I would have no problem further targeting that. I do not think my colleague from California would, either. But the proposal out on the floor by the Republican majority--a sort of across-the-board repeal that amounts to $850 billion of lost revenue over the next 20 years-- has to be considered alongside what we are about as a nation, what we are about as a people. I think the Senator from California speaks to the whole question of community. My definition of community is that we all do better when we all do better. The interesting thing is that many people in Minnesota who are economically very successful--I do not know if they are the wealthiest 2 percent; I can think of some for whom I think I can speak who would say: Look, in all due respect, in terms of the scheme of your priorities, my gosh, get it right first for children. Get it right by way of helping families and helping children. Get it right by investing in education. We now have 44 million people with no health insurance whatsoever. We have probably twice that number who are underinsured. We have senior citizens for which Medicare does not pay for prescription drug benefits in many of our States, or cover very little of it, who are faced with those expenses. We have a lot of elderly people--we do not talk about this much--who are terrified that they are going to have to go to the poorhouse before anybody will help them with catastrophic expenses, if, God forbid, they can't live at home. Right now--my colleague from Wisconsin knows this well; this has been one of his priorities--we have not put anywhere near the resources we should put into assisted living so people can stay at home and live as near a normal circumstance as possible. That is a big family issue. Let's think about this for a moment. From little children--under 4 feet tall, who are beautiful, all of them--to people who are elderly and are having a hard time paying their health care bills, and especially at the very end of their lives, who are frail and are wondering can they stay at home and live with dignity and wondering who will help them, or if, God forbid, they have to be in a nursing home because of Alzheimer's disease or whatever the case may be, that across the board we have not made the investment. There is a lot we need to do as a nation. These are important priorities, not only for our country, not only for California or Minnesota. That isn't the right way to say it. These are important family values. I say to Senator Boxer from California, what I am asking is: Where are our priorities that focus on family values? To me, it is a family value to come out and talk about tax credits or a direct investment of money to make sure child care is affordable. It is a family value to make sure people, at the end of their lives, or toward the end of their lives, who have worked hard and have built this country, should not have to be in terror that there won't be anybody to help them stay at home, or, if they are in a nursing home, nobody to help them with their expenses. The United States of America--I love this country--is the only country where you have to go to the poorhouse before you are eligible for any help--Medicaid, Medicare assistance. Clearly, as a nation, in terms of our own priorities, we are going to have to start valuing the work of adults who work with children. We are going to have to start valuing the work of adults who work with elderly people. We pay them $6 or $7 or $8 an hour, with no health care benefits. This cannot be done on the cheap. We have all these challenges. We are talking about $100 billion the first 10 years, and then the second 10 years, $750 billion. That is what this costs to provide a blank check benefit to the wealthiest 2 percent of the population. We have all these challenges before us in terms of Medicare, in terms of Social Security, in terms of making sure there is health security for families, in terms of making sure we get it right for our kids. They are the ones who we are going to be asking a lot of by the year 2020. In the words of Rabbi Hillel: If not now, when? If we can't invest in our children now, when will we? If we can't invest in the health and the skills and the intellect of our children now, when will we ever do that? So I say to my colleagues, I just mention one amendment which I hope to be able to bring to the floor on this bill, which will talk about rather than all of these benefits just going to the wealthiest 2 percent, how about an additional refundable tax credit to help families afford child care expenses? I say to my colleague from California, and other colleagues as well, I am for patient protection, I am for passing legislation that provides not only patient protection but provides caregivers protection. Demoralized caregivers are not good caregivers. I think doctors and nurses ought to be in the kind of position to practice medicine the way they thought they could when they were in nursing or medical school. But the other issue is all the people who fall between the cracks who have no health security. I am amazed that universal health care coverage is not back on the table. I do not believe for a moment that the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the world, with a booming economy, and record surpluses at the moment, cannot provide health security for American citizens, for families in this country. You can't have it all ways. If my Republican colleagues want to come out and say their priority is to provide a great tax benefit for the wealthiest 2 percent of the population, which is going to cost us $850 billion over the next 20 years, then not only are we not going to be able to do right by Medicare, not only are we not going to be able to provide prescription drug costs, but we are not even going to begin to be able to talk about how we reach the goal of health security for every American citizen, for all the families in this country. What are our priorities? Instead of moving forward on this piece of legislation, we ought to be focusing on health security for American citizens. Not that we need to look to the polls to give us guidance, but not surprisingly, along with education, health security for families and citizens, emerge as top issues. I will mention two other issues in terms of what we could be doing and what we should be doing, instead of repealing the estate tax blanket repeal, across the board, benefits going to the wealthiest 2 percent of the population. I think I speak for every Senator, Democrat and Republican, on this one. In 1997, we passed what was called the Balanced Budget Act. Some people voted for it; some people voted against it. I am glad I voted against it. Different people vote different ways. If it wasn't then, it is crystal clear now that what we have done to the Medicare reimbursement by so dramatically cutting it has had a catastrophic effect on our hospitals and on our nursing homes, especially in our rural communities. I attended a recent gathering at White Hospital in Hoyt Lakes, up on the Iron Range. Hospitals in a State such as Minnesota, where we don't have the fat in the system, do not make excessive profits at all. They are going to go under. We are going to have more and more hospital closings. These hospitals are community institutions. These hospitals are important to communities, not only because rural America doesn't do well; when people are trying to decide if they want to live in a rural community, they want to know whether they can afford to live in the community: will there be a job at a decent wage? Can they afford to farm? Are they going to get a decent price? The second thing they want to know is whether they want to live in a rural community. If they don't have good health care and good education, they are not going to do it. Last year, we said we fixed this problem. We restored about 10 percent of the cuts. Again, I am not now talking about universal health care coverage, although I believe our country must embrace this idea. I will introduce a bill next week, working with the Service Employees International Union. It is a decentralized health insurance program. I like it a lot. I want to get it back on the agenda. I think it is important that we have a constituency to fight for it in the country. I am not even talking about prescription drug benefits. I am not even talking about major reform. I am saying, I don't know how in the world we go forward with this kind of across-the-board blanket repeal with the benefits going to the wealthiest 2 percent of the population when we aren't even getting it right in terms of getting the reimbursement that our health care providers actually deserve back in our States. I will mention one other issue. Senator Feingold is here on the floor, along with Senator Boxer, Senator Reid, and Senator Burns. Instead of going forward with this tax scheme, why aren't we dealing with a core issue: reform. Why aren't we debating campaign finance reform? There is probably a pretty strong correlation. Some of the programs I have talked about and some of the values I have talked about, the people who would most benefit are not the heavy hitters, not the givers. They are not the investors and big contributors. Clearly, the wealthiest 2 percent of the population are among the ranks of the biggest givers, although there is not a one-to-one correlation. Clearly, at the very top, many people I know in Minnesota and I think around the country think we ought to get our priorities straight. We ought to start with some of the priorities I have talked about. Why aren't we dealing with reform? When are we going to get to dealing with the ways in which money has come to dominate politics? There is the McCain-Feingold bill. There is the clean money/clean election efforts in different States. I have introduced that legislation. One of the things I would like to do is to at least change three words of the Federal election code which would enable States, if they want to, to apply clean money/clean election to Federal races. If the State of Wisconsin or Minnesota said it would like to apply this to State legislative races but also to Federal races, it ought to be able to do that. Whatever your own preference, I think people in our country are begging us to move forward on a reform agenda and to give them a political process in which they can believe. I think citizens in our country are yearning for politicians they can believe. They are yearning for a Senate and House of Representatives in which they can believe. They are yearning for a political process in which they can participate. Right now there is so much disillusionment and disengagement, it should worry all of us who believe in public service. I can't think of anything we could do that would be more important than to pass significant, substantive campaign finance reform, instead of a tax scheme in its present form providing the benefits to the wealthiest 2 percent. Couldn't we be talking about campaign finance reform? Couldn't we be talking about renewing democracy in America? Couldn't we be talking about how to restore confidence in the Government and the political process? Couldn't we be talking about renewing our national vow of equal opportunity for every child and affordable child care? Couldn't we be talking about how to help families do well by their kids so they can do well by our country and could do well by our States? Couldn't we be talking about how to help men and women who want to go on to higher education afford higher education? Couldn't we be talking about making sure elderly people can afford prescription drugs? Couldn't we be talking about how to have more health security for people in our country? So many citizens fall in between the cracks; so many citizens feel so insecure. Couldn't we be talking about all of that and more with a booming economy and record surpluses? Couldn't we now get some resources back in the communities so our families could do better, so our children could do better, so that we all would be doing better because we all would be doing better, which is what a community is about? I think we could. That is where we ought to be focusing. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Erin Fullerton be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington and Senator Byrd, who I know want to expedite the matter, for allowing me to speak about an amendment that I am now drafting. I want to make sure this works out well. This is in response to something, as the Senator mentioned, that is a priority for both myself and Senator Grams. What happened is that we in Minnesota were hit with a once-in-a- thousand-years storm, literally. It was on July 4, 1999. Over 400,000 acres in Minnesota were damaged, including the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, as well as the Gunflint Corridor, in Superior National Forest. This started in the Boundary Waters Wilderness area, which is really a national treasure. What we are worried about is the blow-down to which Senator Gorton referred. We had a hearing in Grand Rapids on Friday. Senator Craig chaired the hearing, and I thought he did a superb job. Basically, what people are focused on right now is how to deal with this blow-down and the possibility of a conflagration. Everybody is very worried about what could happen. The Forest Service--I think there was also consensus on this--is doing a very good job. I think that is what people across the spectrum were saying. What happened is we had $9.2 million in emergency funding that came out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, however we lost much of that funding when the MILCON bill got put together. The funding went from $9.2 million to $2 million. This additional $7.2 million--and I know you heard from Senator Grams on this as well--is critically important to us. It is important also for some of the work that the Forest Service is trying to do just by way of education. It is incredible how few minor fires we have had; people have been paying very careful attention and are doing everything they can to prevent them. It also goes to the whole question of how we deal with the trees that are down and the underbrush and whether or not we can do the prescribed burns on what kind of schedule. This is critically important to my State of Minnesota. So what I want to do is take 10 minutes or so to outline what we are dealing with in Minnesota, and then I will have an amendment that I will send to the desk, or I can get it to staff and Senators and see whether we can just reach some agreement. Again, this was an unbelievable storm that hit our State. In many ways, what I think has happened is that it has brought Minnesotans together; it has brought the best out in people. We are talking about our beloved national forests. This is a critically important area; 400,000 acres in 7 counties were hit by a storm that damaged as much as 70 percent of the trees in certain areas and wiped out numerous rows. The damage of this storm has presented unbelievable challenges, not only to land managers but all Minnesotans--people who depend on the national forest for their jobs, family incomes, industrial materials such as paper and pulp, and family vacations and recreation. Mr. President, I do think that the Forest Service, as I said, has begun to implement a significant and important effort. In particular, what they are trying to deal with is the dead and downed timber, which is a great threat to people in the State, and really, I think, a great threat to the country because we are talking about a crown jewel wilderness area. My intention is to have an amendment--we are working on it right now, drafting it in such a way that we clearly make the case for emergency funding, which I think we can. We really should have had this additional money. I want to make sure it is OK with colleagues on both sides. And then later on maybe we will have a vote or maybe it can be accepted. I hope we can get an agreement on this amendment. I wanted to signal my intention to you and spell out what I want to do. Mr. President, I heard my colleague refer to this blow-down amendment. I wonder whether he might respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, but I would like to hold the floor a few more minutes. I yield temporarily.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Senator's comments. As far as I am concerned, this request should come from both Senators. I would be delighted if Senator Grams joined me. We will get the wording of the amendment to you. We will do this together. We want to just get it done for our State. I think the Senator from Washington can appreciate that sentiment. That is his modus operandi. I will let other Senators come forward with amendments now. I will get the amendment to you. We will have Senator Grams join in, and we will try to get it done on this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague from Missouri is very gracious and I can do this in 30 seconds. amendment no. 3772 (Purpose: To increase funding for emergency expenses resulting from wind storms)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, again, is to restore $7.2 million in emergency funding. My colleague from Washington made a helpful suggestion. Senator Grams is coming back from Minnesota today. I believe we can do this together. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside, and when Senator Grams comes back, we will talk tonight. We will both come out together. He will join me. I thank my colleague from Washington and my colleague from West Virginia as well for their support. It is terribly important to get this additional money to deal with the blow-down. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before we proceed, could I ask my colleague, is it 2 minutes equally divided or 4 minutes equally divided on each amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 3698

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the Bush administration's policy of requiring a reasonable pricing clause in the NIH drug patent licensing agreements and cooperative research agreements with pharmaceutical companies unless waived on public interest grounds. It does not apply to universities. A very similar amendment passed by a 2-to-1 margin in the House of Representatives. All this says is, when it is our public dollars--taxpayer money, our constituents' money--we expect that the drug companies, when they benefit from all this, will agree to charge our constituents a reasonable price. I think this is an amendment that should command widespread support. I have offered this amendment with Senator Johnson. It has support from the National Council of Senior Citizens, Families USA, and the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I also want to say that I think Senator Levin, last night, hit the nail on the head when he said: It is bad enough that we have exorbitant prices. It is worse when we actually subsidize the research, and then we do not ask anything in return from these companies.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I rise in hope that Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin of the Labor-HHS Appropriation Subcommittee will engage in a colloquy with myself and Senator Jeffords, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, on the importance of advance funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). I had initially planned to offer an amendment, with Senators Jeffords, Kohl, Lieberman, Levin, Schumer, Reed, Dodd, Kennedy, and Leahy, that would restore advance funding for this essential program. However, since it is my understanding that my colleagues will work in the conference to ensure that the House provision for advance LIHEAP funding is included in the final appropriation bill, I will withdraw my amendment. As my colleagues know, there is broad bipartisan, multi-regional support for LIHEAP. This year, 46 Senators signed a letter in support of the program. Specifically, we asked for $1.4 billion in regular LIHEAP funding, along with $300 million in emergency funding. In addition, we urged $1.5 billion in advance LIHEAP funding for fiscal year 2002. It is the lack of this advance funding in the Senate Labor- HHS appropriation bill that causes me great concern. As many of my colleagues know, Minnesota is often called the ice-box of the nation, where bitterly cold weather is the norm. In fact, Minnesota is the third coldest state, in terms of heating degree days, in the country, after Alaska and North Dakota. Especially in cold- weather states like Minnesota, funding for LIHEAP is critical to families with children and vulnerable low-income elderly persons, who without it could be forced to choose between food and heat. As we saw several years ago, when the Federal government shut down, piecemeal funding approved for LIHEAP had an extremely disruptive effect on the operation of the energy programs in the states. Congressional delay and enactment of appropriations bills after October 1 severely hampers states abilities to effectively plan their energy assistance programs. States operating year-round programs or those that begin in September are particularly threatened. Therefore, advance appropriations enable the creation of administrative systems for more efficient program management, allowing for orderly planning of state LIHEAP programs. Will the Chairman work in conference to include this critical advance funding appropriation in the final Labor-HHS appropriation bill?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Harkin and Senator Jeffords. I appreciate your commitment to work in conference on behalf of LIHEAP, and I withdraw the amendment. centers for independent living

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the changes that were made to ``Plan Colombia'' in the military construction conference report. As if this body did not originally give enough to the military ``Push into Southern Colombia'' with $250 million, this conference report increases that amount by $140 million, to fund a 390 million dollar first-time offensive military action in southern Colombia. ``Plan Colombia'' has been added to this conference report as an emergency supplemental. We are moving it through this Congress quickly under the guise of a ``drug emergency.'' But, if there is truly a drug emergency in this country, and I believe there is, why are there no resources in this plan targeted to where they will do the most good: providing funding for drug treatment programs at home? And, honestly, if the purpose of this military aid is to stop the supply of drugs, shouldn't some of that aid target the North as well? Something strange and dishonest is going on here. During our debate over ``Plan Colombia'' I heard over and over again not only how much the Colombian government needed this assistance, but also how urgently it had to have it. I heard over and over again how if Colombia did not get this money now all hope for democracy would be lost, not only in Colombia but also for many other Latin and South American countries as well. This, my colleagues, is a far cry from stopping the flow of drugs into the United States. This, my colleagues, is choosing sides in a civil war that has raged for more than thirty years. And I think the American people deserve to know this. This massive increase in counternarcotics aid for Colombia this year puts the U.S. at a crossroads--do we back a major escalation in military aid to Colombia that may worsen a civil war that has already raged for decades, or do we pursue a more effective policy of stabilizing Colombia by promoting sustainable development, strengthening civilian democratic institutions, and attacking the drug market by investing in prevention and treatment at home? I see today that we have chosen the former. We are choosing to align ourselves with a military that is known to have close contacts with paramilitary organizations. Paramilitary groups operating with acquiescence or open support of the military account for most of the political violence in Colombia today. In its annual report for 1999, Human Rights Watch reports: ``in 1999 paramilitary were considered responsible for 78% of the total number of human rights and international humanitarian law violations'' in Colombia. Our own 1999 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights notes that ``at times the security forces collaborated with paramilitary groups that committed abuses.'' We should support Colombia during this crisis. Being tough on drugs is important, but we need to be smart about the tactics we employ. This conference report decreases by $29 million the aid this Chamber gave to support alternative development programs in Colombia. It cuts by $21 million support for human rights and judicial reform. It also cuts support for interdiction by $3.1 million. Yet, it increases by $140 million funding for the military ``Push into Southern Colombia.'' What are we doing here? Guns never have and never will solve Colombia's ills, nor will they address our drug problem here in the United States. I reiterate how unbalanced ``Plan Colombia'' is in this conference report. It cuts the good and increases the bad. A more sensible approach would have been to permit extensive assistance to Colombia in the form of promoting sustainable development and strengthening civilian democratic institutions. This would have safeguarded U.S. interests in avoiding entanglement in a decades-old civil conflict, and partnership with an army implicated in severe human rights abuses. Instead, we are funding a military offensive into southern Colombia and denying resources where they would be the most effective: drug treatment programs at home. I am appalled at this strategy.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from North Carolina, is he finished with his prepared remarks on his amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Johnson from South Dakota. I am just going to take 1 minute to summarize this amendment, I say to my colleagues, and then Senator Johnson will proceed, and then I will come back to the amendment. Mr. President, if you just look right here at this chart, it is very interesting. Tamoxifen and Prozac are two widely used drugs. Look at the difference between what the United States citizens pay for a vial versus what people in Canada pay. In our country, a United States citizen pays $241 for tamoxifen; $34 in Canada. For Prozac, in this country it is $105; in Canada, it is $43. What this amendment says--and I want to go back to Bernadette Healy's leadership at NIH. What this amendment says is that what Ms. Healy did is the right thing to do, which is to say to the pharmaceutical companies, when the NIH does the research, and then the patent is handed over to a pharmaceutical company, that pharmaceutical company-- since we put the taxpayer dollars into the research--should at least agree to provide citizens in this country with a decent, affordable charge; that the pharmaceutical company should agree to an affordable price or a reasonable price which is defined specifically by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Again, this amendment says that pharmaceutical companies that negotiate an agreement with NIH--NIH is doing the research, helping out, the drug is then developed, the pharmaceutical company now has the patent--must sign an agreement to sell the drug at a reasonable price. I do not think it is unreasonable from the point of view of your constituents and my constituents, people in this country who pay the taxes and support our Government, who feel just a little bit ripped off by the prices today, that if we are going to put our taxpayer dollars into the research and into the support and then the pharmaceutical companies are going to get a patent, at the very minimum they ought to be willing to sell the drug to people in our country at a reasonable price defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This amendment is all about corporate welfare at its worst. It is about being there for consumers. It is about assuring people that their taxpayer dollars are contributing toward some research that will in turn contribute toward affordable drugs for themselves and their children. I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Johnson of South Dakota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. Again, the amendment says that when the pharmaceutical companies negotiate an agreement with the NIH to develop and market a drug based on taxpayer-financed research, there must be an agreement signed by the pharmaceutical companies that they will sell the drug at a reasonable price. This is an eminently reasonable amendment. This amendment does not cover extramural NIH research grants, such as grants to universities. It does not cover grants to universities. It does not establish a health care price control scheme. This amendment will reinstate the Bush administration's reasonable pricing clause which was in effect from 1989 to 1995. This amendment directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine what is a reasonable price. This amendment gives the Secretary flexibility to waive the pricing clause if it is in the public interest to do so. As my colleague from South Dakota pointed out, a similar amendment, which was introduced by Congressmen Sanders, Rohrabacher, DeFazio, and others passed the House of Representatives by a 3-to-1 margin, 313 to 109. It is because people in the country feel ripped off by this industry. People in the country believe that the prices should be more reasonable. Certainly our constituents believe that if we are going to be funding some of the research and these companies are going to benefit from our taxpayer dollars, then there ought to be an agreement that these companies are going to be willing to charge us a reasonable price. That is not too much to ask. This amendment is supported by Families U.S.A., the National Council of Senior Citizens, and the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I ask unanimous consent that their letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his remarks. I am very proud to have his support. Amendment No. 3699 (Purpose: To fully fund IDEA)

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will quote from Ron Pollack, executive director of Families U.S.A.: Currently, once NIH has successfully developed a new drug it signs over the commercial rights to pharmaceutical companies that charge American consumers as much as they want. Americans are forced to pay twice for lifesaving drugs, first as taxpayers to develop the drug and then as consumers to the drug companies for the product. These costs fall hardest on those least able to bear the burden such as senior citizens and the uninsured, although all consumers wind up paying more than they should have to. I want to simply quote from a piece in the New York Times from April 23, which challenged the drug industry's contention that R&D cost justify the prices they charge the American consumer. That is what we keep hearing, that it is the R&D cost. That is why they have to charge so much. I quote from the New York Times piece of April 23: The industry's reliance on taxpayer-supported research-- characterized as a ``subsidy'' by the very same economists whose work the industry relies on--is commonplace, the examination also found. So commonplace, in fact, that one industry expert is now raising questions about the companies' arguments. The expert, Dr. Nelson Levy, a former head of research and development at Abbott Laboratories, who now works as a consultant for industry and the Federal Government on drug development, bluntly challenged the industry's oft-repeated cost of developing the drug. ``That it costs $500 million to develop a drug,'' Dr. Levy said in a recent interview, ``is a lot of bull.'' Finally, the examination found that Federal officials have abandoned or ignored policies that could have led to lower prices for medicines developed with taxpayer dollars. That is partly because the Government has lost track of what drugs have been invented with its money, and partly, officials say, because the industry has resisted any Government effort to insist that they charge people--our constituents--a reasonable price. As Dr. Bernadine Healy, a former Director of the NIH, said in a recent interview, ``We sold away Government research so cheap.'' Again, it is not a new issue. During the Bush administration, the NIH, from 1989 to 1995, insisted there be some reasonable pricing clause. There was heavy pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. They abandoned this practice. We are saying that we ought to be going back to it. There are multiple factors contributing to the prescription drug cost crisis in our country today. I realize that this reasonable pricing clause is not a panacea for these egregiously high drug costs for America's seniors--and, for that matter, for families in our country-- but this amendment makes it clear the Congress will not allow taxpayers to spend all of the money for this kind of research and then not get any kind of break in return. For the most part, most of the drugs that are developed with taxpayer money are then given over to the pharmaceutical industry with no assurance whatsoever that Americans will not be charged outrageously high prices--in fact, no assurance that they won't be charged the highest prices in the world. Tamoxifen is a very important drug to women struggling with breast cancer. This is what a prescription costs that is getting filled. In Canada, it is $34. In the United States, it is $241. Prozac is $43 in Canada, and in the U.S. it is $105. Here is the next chart. This amendment will ensure that we get some fair return on our investment and that we don't get the highest prices for medications in the world. Let me restate that. I don't think it ensures that, but it can only help. I have given some examples up here. Let me simply point out to colleagues that the cost of prescription drugs has skyrocketed. Our people in this country this past year paid 17 percent more. Let me also point out that we are paying the highest costs for pharmaceutical drugs of any people anywhere in the world-- exorbitant prices. I have this chart--The Fleecing of America--just to look at some of the profits of companies. Let me give some examples: entertainment companies, $4.2 billion; airline companies, $4.7 billion; oil companies are doing pretty well right now at $13.6 billion; auto companies, $15.4 billion; the drug companies, $20 billion. As the Fortune 500 magazine said, this past year has been a ``Viagra'' kind of year for these drug companies. But do you know what. It is the consumers who paid the price. We are charged the highest prices of any country in the world, and I think it is time to say to the pharmaceutical companies that enough is enough. This industry has opposed every measure that has been introduced in this Congress to try to lower prices and to provide a decent prescription drug benefit to senior citizens. Frankly, I hate talking about it in terms of senior citizens because there are a lot of working families being hurt by this. I think the amendment we have introduced tonight is a small step, but I think it is a step in the right direction. It is not unreasonable to say to these companies that if we are going to finance the research, if NIH is going to do the research, if you are going to get valuable data and information from NIH to use to develop your drugs, and you are going to get the patent, at the very least you have to agree to charge a reasonable price. That is all this amendment says. This is what we did under Dr. Healy's leadership. The pharmaceutical companies hated it. They were able to knock it out sometime around 1995. But do you know what. A lot has changed, I say to Democrats and Republicans alike, since 1995. People in our States are absolutely furious about the prices they are being charged by the pharmaceutical industry. This industry has basically become a cartel. I wish there were a lot of free enterprise. I wish there were a lot of competition. But that is not so. They basically have administered prices; they basically have price gouged; and they have made an immense amount of profit--an exorbitant amount of profit--based upon the sickness and misery and illness of people. That, in and of itself, is an obscene proposition. This amendment goes after the worst of corporate welfare. This amendment is eminently reasonable, and I hope that my colleagues will support it. Again, I point out the support of Families U.S.A. I think I will read from the letter of the National Council of Senior Citizens: The National Council of Senior Citizens fully supports your amendment to the FY2001 Labor HHS appropriations bill to require that the Federal government negotiate a reasonable and fairer price for all drugs developed with public funds. Ask the people back home. Do any of our constituents think it is unreasonable for us to ask these companies that benefit from our taxpayer dollars and benefit from Government research to charge our citizens, our constituents, a reasonable price? They go on to say: The Federal Government has for too long sold its most precious research findings for a mess of pottage to the pharmaceutical cartels. The drug companies, in turn, sell the findings back to the American people at unconscionably high retail prices. Pharmaceutical retail price reform must start at the source--where public drug research and development investment has borne fruit. Finally, from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: On behalf of the members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I strongly support your proposed amendment. When pharmaceutical companies build on NIH research they are using taxpayer money. A Congressional Joint Economic Committee report revealed that seven out of the top 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were developed with federally funded research. Taxpayers deserve some return on their investment in terms of lower prices. This amendment would help to ensure that. This amendment would help to ensure that, and I don't know why the Senate tomorrow morning cannot go on record saying that when we, a Government agency supported by taxpayer dollars, by our constituents, do the research, provide the data, provide the information to these companies, which in turn get a patent for the drug, those companies will sign an agreement that they will charge the citizens in this country a reasonable price. They make all the arguments about how they need all of these exorbitant profits for their research. But there is not a shred of evidence to support that. Their profits are so exorbitant that it goes way beyond any cost of research. We all know that. That is what is behind the record profits they make. They make these arguments that I cannot believe--that if NIH is going to force us to sign an agreement, since we benefit from your research and the taxpayer money, we will charge people a reasonable price, then we may not even be willing to do this research. That is blackmail, or white mail, or whatever you want to call it. It is outrageous. These companies dare to say to the NIH--or dare to say to the Government, or to our constituents--if the Government says to the pharmaceutical companies that get the research dollars, do the work and research and get the patent, that they should charge a reasonable price, we might not do the research at all, enough is enough. My final point: I think this is a reform issue as well. I think Senators vote their own way. But, honest to God, I think, at least speaking as a Senator from Minnesota, I am just tired of the way in which--if Fanny Lou Hammer were on the floor she would say ``sick and tired''--this industry pours the dollars in, makes these huge contributions, has all of these lobbyists, has all of this political power, and is so well represented to the point where they believe they run the Congress. They do not. This amendment with very similar language passed the House of Representatives by a huge margin. Very similar language, the same proposition, and the same subject matter passed the House of Representatives by a huge margin. I hope tomorrow on the floor of the Senate there will be a strong vote for this amendment that I bring to the floor with Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to be very brief. Staff is here, and it is late. It has been a long week. I can do this in a couple of minutes. I wanted to stay with Senator Harkin because I think this amendment goes right to the heart of what we are about. It is a win-win-win-win amendment. I do not know how many times I said ``win.'' It is a win for us because we should match our budgets and our votes with the words we speak. Just about everybody on the floor of the Senate said they are for the Federal Government meeting this commitment of 40 percent funding of IDEA. It is also a win for children with special needs. It is about children. We ought to do well for all of our children. Maybe it is because I am getting a little older and have six grandchildren, but I think all children are beautiful and all children have potential and all children can make contributions. We should do everything we can to nurture and support them. That is what this program has been about. The Senator from Iowa has been, if not the leader, one of the great few leaders from early time on for kids with special needs. It is also a win because I do think our States and school districts, if we can do better by way of our investments, I say to Senator Harkin, will not only be able to live up to this commitment but will have more resources to invest in other priority areas. One of the things that has troubled me is, the Senator talked about the surplus. What is it over 10 years, $1.9 trillion?

Mr. WELLSTONE. It is $1.5 trillion non-Social Security over the next 10 years. Some of what has been discussed is a zero-sum gain, whether we are faced with the choice of do you support low-income kids with title I or do you support IDEA or do you support a lower class size or do you support trying to get more teachers into our schools, or do you support rebuilding crumbling schools. I believe we have a chance right now with the surplus, with these additional resources, to make these decisive investments. I cannot think of anything more important than making this investment in children and education. My last point is, all of us--and I will even make this bipartisan, seeing Senator Chafee presiding, whom I think cares deeply about children and education, just like his dad did, and I mean that sincerely--we are all going to have to make some decisions about consistency. It is like the old Yiddish proverb: You can't dance at two weddings at the same time. We cannot do everything. Some people want to put yet more into tax cuts, including Democrats, more here and more there. Ultimately, we have to decide what is most important. We have this surplus and we have the opportunity. We have had all the debate and discussion, and now we have an opportunity, with this amendment--of which I am proud to be a cosponsor--to match our votes with our rhetoric. We should do that. I hope there is a strong vote for this from Democrats and Republicans. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I yield the floor.