Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have spoken with Senator Grassley and with his staff and the Staff of Senator Baucus about the definition of expatriating firms and tax havens in my amendment. It would be my hope that the conferees to the Defense Appropriations bill could conform the definition in my amendment with the definition in S. 2119, the Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore Act.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues. I think this is an amendment of which we can be proud, and I am very proud that it passed.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think all of us were deeply concerned about the four domestic violence homicides that occurred over the past 6 weeks at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The tragic murder of these young women by their husbands within such a short period of time is devastating. It is devastating to the families of the victims. It is devastating to their friends. It is devastating to the military where soldiers and their families should be safe on base. And they should be safe in their homes. The Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, which is made up of 12 military and 12 civilian members, was charged by Congress to investigate domestic violence in the military and to make recommendations for the Secretary on how to reduce the violence. In the introduction in its first report, the task force wrote: Domestic violence is an offense against the institutional values of the Military Services of the United States of America. It is an affront to human dignity, degrades the overall readiness of our Armed Forces, and will not be tolerated in the Department of Defense. I don't think anyone who has followed the recent events in North Carolina would disagree. In fact, the North Carolina incidents, while unusual in that they are clustered within such a short period of time, are not unique. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service reported 54 domestic homicides in the Navy and Marines since 1995. The Army reported 131 homicides since 1995 and the Air Force reported 32. This is a problem that is by no means limited to the military, but its dimensions in the military are complex and need to be addressed. I know Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz share that view. I applaud the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for the attention they have given to this issue and for the willingness they have shown to address it. The amendment which I offer today would help the military reduce domestic violence in the ranks. In particular, it would ensure that funds are used to establish an impartial, multidisciplinary, confidential Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team at the Military Community and Family Policy Office. The team would be charged with investigating every domestic fatality in the military. The purpose of the investigation would be twofold: First, the team would determine what intervention and services were provided to the victim and to the offender prior to the fatality; second, what interventions and services could have been provided to the victim and offender that could have prevented the fatality. The team would also aggregate data from domestic violence fatalities to help determine patterns so as to develop systemic responses to domestic violence and prevent some tragedy from ever happening again. The need for such a review is clear. The Defense Department Task Force found that ``fatality reviews have yet to become an important element of DOD's overall response to domestic violence.'' It would recommend the use of the Fatality Review Team in order to ``provide a mechanism for ongoing review of domestic violence policies and case practices that may inadvertently contribute to the death of a victim or offender with the primary objective of contributing to systemic improvements in a military community's response to domestic violence.'' While the military is conducting the review in the Fort Bragg case-- and this is an important first step--I believe and the task force believes that such reviews must become routine--not just at Fort Bragg but all across the country. The second part of this amendment would help the Department ensure that there are victims advocates at every military installation who provide confidential support and guidance exclusively to victims. The Defense Task Force expressed concern about the ``stark contrast between the availability of victim advocacy services in the military and civilian communities.'' It later asserts that ``Victims should have access to a well defined program for victim advocacy.'' And this should be in every military installation. The Defense Department does provide excellent family advocacy programs to victims, but the Defense Task Force and other researchers have found that the Family Advocacy Program, while serving an important function, can in many cases erect barriers to women finding safety for themselves and their children. Women have to be able to go to somebody where there is complete confidentiality. That is extremely important. The problem, in many cases, with the current system is that when a victim reports abuse, that abuse must be reported to Command regardless of the victim's wishes. This lack of confidentiality has a profound effect on victims' willingness to come forward and find safety. According to the task force, victims expressed ``fears related to personal safety, loss of career and the belief that commanding officers generally appeared more supportive of the service member than the spouse who is the victim.'' That is important data, I say to Senators. Caliber Associates conducted two studies that also concluded that the No. 1 barrier to reporting domestic violence for victims is the fear of the negative impact on the offender's career. Other concerns with the current system are that ``the commanding officer's lacking knowledge of the complex dynamics of domestic violence led him/her to make decisions that placed the victim in unsafe circumstances with respect to the offender'' and that the family advocates often work with both the victim and the offender, leading victims to believe that their safety concerns actually get lost or actually their safety concerns become more serious. In sum, the task force reports, ``When the Military Services do not have advocates exclusively for domestic violence victims, the current system often disempowers victims.'' It is for these victims that a victim advocate is necessary. This amendment does not replace the Family Advocacy Program, nor is it meant to be critical of its very good work. Rather, the amendment ensures that victims whose lives are in danger have an alternative place to turn to that is confidential and where their needs can be met without qualification. The victim advocates would aid women through counseling, safety planning, and referral to civilian and military shelter, legal counseling, and medical and other relevant services so they can provide for their own safety and the safety of their families without fear. Finally, this amendment would require that the Secretary report to the Congress on progress in implementing the regulations of the task force. Domestic violence is something that we in Congress must constantly work to prevent, reduce, and eventually end. Having such reporting will help us work with the military to address domestic violence in one part of our society. Colleagues, what happened at Fort Bragg should never happen again. This amendment represents a small step toward preventing future tragedies. I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski as a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the distinguished chair of the committee that I have had an opportunity to do a lot of work dealing with domestic violence, mainly because of my wife Sheila's work, and she has been my teacher. This is by no means an issue or problem just in the military. Some people say about every 15 seconds a woman is battered somewhere in our country, quite often in the home. A home should be a safe place for women and children, but quite often it isn't. We passed the Violence Against Women Act, and we reauthorized it, and things are starting to change. It is not true, any longer, in communities, everybody is saying: Well, that's private business. It's not our business. We do not turn our gaze away from this any longer. But, unfortunately, it is a huge problem, and also for these children who witness this violence. I believe the Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have shown great concern, and I appreciate that. This amendment is just an emphasis to put more focus on this and to have the Congress--the House and the Senate--working with our Defense Department. I believe it is a constructive amendment and a positive amendment. I understand, although I wait to hear from the distinguished chair, that my colleagues are willing to accept the amendment. If that is the case, that is wonderful.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank both my colleagues. I cannot add to the words of the Senator from Alaska. He said it better than I could.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with my colleague the importance of research into Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common lethal childhood genetic disease worldwide. Progress on slowing the relentless progression of the disease has been nearly nonexistent, largely due to insufficient mechanisms to fund translational research. This research is closely linked to the broader investigation of muscle and nerve damage following toxin exposure, excessive exercise, and other motor neuron disease, all of which have significant implications and relevance for defense programs. For example, spinal cord injury is a major form of combat and training-related injury. Motor neurons and motor neuron disease is a potential target of bioterrorism. Muscle damage during training is a relatively common problem during basic training. Recognizing this, the House of Representatives has included in the Defense Health Program in the Department of Defense appropriations $4 million dollars in funding for muscular dystrophy research. While I filed and was prepared to offer an amendment to include this funding in our Senate bill, I am willing to forgo this amendment if the chairman can assure me he supports this funding and will seek to ensure its inclusion in the bill's conference report.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to be very brief because Senator Mikulski and others wish to speak as well. I actually did not come with prepared remarks, but I do have a bit to say about my State of Minnesota. I will make one or two points and then thank some of my colleagues for their fine work. There are 644,000 Minnesotans enrolled in Medicare. By the way, one of the reasons I am glad of what we are doing as part of the Medicare framework is that Medicare was an enormous step forward, not just for senior citizens but for our country. Senior citizens means we are talking about our parents or grandparents. For my mother and father, who never made a lot of money, Medicare made an enormous difference. Both of them have passed away. Both had Parkinson's disease. My father had advanced Parkinson's disease. Medicare was a huge step forward. A second factor, if you will, is the median income of senior citizens and the disabled enrolled in Medicare is $15,173 in Minnesota. There is this stereotype about how you have all of these high-income senior citizens who are playing all the swank golf courses around the country. The fact of the matter is, the income profile of senior citizens is not that high. It certainly is not in my State. It certainly is not for the Medicare enrollees. The impact of this amendment is 644,000 beneficiaries and 258,000 Minnesotans--that is 40 percent of the population--with incomes below 200 percent of poverty are going to be eligible and will receive all the needed drugs for nominal copayments. I do not have such intellectual distance from this issue that I think this is insignificant. That is important. That is very important. Mr. President, 386,000 Medicare beneficiaries will be receiving the discount which could go from 20 to 30 percent. That is the estimate. Then finally, 119,000 senior citizens and disabled Medicare beneficiaries will benefit from the catastrophic coverage, and that is the catastrophic stop-loss protection. Of course, it is an insurance policy that means a lot to people who worry: My God, we are going to go under because of catastrophic expenses. I have two or three points to make. The first one is--and I hope Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and Senator Lincoln, who have done so much work on this legislation, believe me--I would far prefer to have a broader, more inclusive piece of legislation. Senator Stabenow, who is leaving the Chamber, has also done tremendous work. I say to Senator Stabenow, I am sorry I did not mention her name from the go. I would rather this legislation be much broader in scope of coverage, no question about it. We had a bill before us earlier, the Graham- Miller bill, on which we received 52 votes, but we did not get 60 votes. By the budget rules, we were not able to pass it. We are trying to get 60 votes to pass legislation that will be a first installment. We have to do more. We have to have coverage of all recipients. It has to be broader coverage, and we know that. We are trying to make sure we get something done that is concrete and makes a positive difference in the lives of people. That is why we are here as legislators. That is what this effort is about. That is why it deserves 60 votes. That is my first point. My second point is, if I have my way--I guess I get to say it once because I am not going to have my way with this proposal, and this would get not 60 votes, I say to Senator Graham, but far fewer--I would have more cost containment so we could cover more people. I still believe--and I want to do a careful examination of how CBO makes some of its analyses--Health and Human Services ought to say to the pharmaceutical industry that has been making these huge what I call Viagra-like profits over the years: We represent 40 million Medicare recipients; we want a discount; we want the best price; we want what you give in Canada; we want the price you give to veterans. We can get the prices down and cover a lot more people. Someday we are going to get to this whole question of cost containment because that is where this is heading ultimately. My last point is, if you take this Graham-Smith initiative--and I thank all colleagues. I have been in some of the meetings. I cannot imagine the zillions of hours they have been in meetings. I have been in plenty of discussions. If we add this to drug reimportation, albeit a little weakened on the floor of the Senate, and we add access to generic drugs, then we have this amendment and the Stabenow amendment that enables States to do better by way of Medicaid and by way of providing a discount for people who do not have any health insurance coverage at all for prescription drugs--if we put that package together, I would call this a significant first step. It is a first step only, but it is an important one. It makes a difference for people. Then we are going to have to build on it and do better in the future. Last point--I promised that four points ago--I hope this gets 60 votes. I think it should. I think it is obviously an effort to stay under this $400 billion. That is another issue that drives me nuts. I am so glad I did not vote for these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts. They have eroded the revenue base and have made it impossible for us to make investments in education and health care. We are stuck now with this arbitrary number to keep it under $400 billion. We have done that. We have tried to bring people together. We have tried to have a bipartisan initiative. We need 60 votes. I hope colleagues will vote for this so we can move forward. As for the naysaying--I am opposed; I do not like it; I do not want it--enough. Let's pass this and then improve it and then leave with legislation of which we can be proud as an important first step. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 2 years ago it was pretty lonely being in favor of the auditor independence reforms that then-SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt said were necessary to guard against unprecedented accounting scandals. I am proud that I was one of the few who thought Chairman Levitt was going in the right direction. Unfortunately it took the implosion of several multi-billion dollar firms, and a loss of tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in investor equity, to prove that he was right. Now America's capital markets have been shaken by a dramatic loss in investor confidence, threatening the economic recovery. But today, Congress has acted. I rise today in strong support of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act conference report. I commend the Senator from Maryland, the Chairman of the Banking Committee for putting together significant, structural reform of corporate governance and auditor independence and for defending it in conference. And I am heartened that the President and the House leadership have finally agreed to comprehensive reform instead of mere half-measures and tough rhetoric. This bill holds the bad actors accountable for their fraud and deception. But the legislation goes much further, as it should, because the problem goes much deeper. We are faced with more than the wrong doing of individual executives, we are faced with a crisis in confidence in American capital markets and American business. This conference report retains the strong Senate reforms virtually intact. It bars an auditor from offering audit services and other consulting services to the same client. It says publically traded companies must change the partner in charge of the audit every five years. It strengthens oversight of accountants, by establishing an independent board to set and enforce standards. And it enhances disclosure. This alone is real reform. But the bill does more. It makes corporate executives more accountable to their shareholders. It makes investment analysts more accountable to the public. And it's bill contains strong penalties for corporate wrong-doers. All and all, this legislation lets the sunshine back into the smoke- filled corporate board rooms so that insiders have harder time cheating the outsiders. It is structural reform that restores checks and balances that will protect against fraud, deception, and reckless carelessness. We need to restore America's faith in corporate America. It has gone beyond individual wrong doing. The system hides and encourages corruption. Today the Congress passes strong reform. Now I call on the President to make enactment and enforcement of this new law a priority.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I thank him forhis great leadership and the other Senators working on this. I can only say this in 1 minute: I remember when Arthur Levitt came by several years ago to talk with me about the need for audit independence. Senator Sarbanes and others have made that possible. Many people took their savings, converted it to stock, and thought it would be there for their children or grandchildren. Many people had 401(k)s they were counting on. All of this has eroded in value. Investors do not have the confidence in the economy. I think the key is to make the structural change and make sure people can count on the independent audits, that no one is cooking their books. This is the best of government oversight. I am very proud to support this legislation. Once again, I thank the chair of the Banking Committee for exceptional leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am joined by Senator Dayton from Minnesota and the occupant of the Chair. We come to the floor this morning because we want to communicate a respectful, sincere, and honest message to each and every one of our colleagues. It has been my experience in the Senate over the past 12 years that sometimes you just have to fight for people--not with acrimony, but you have to fight for people. In Minnesota, 17 counties have been declared Federal disaster areas due to tremendous floods last month. As a result, Northwest Minnesota, a rich agricultural region, has been devastated. According to the Minnesota Farm Service Agency at least $370 billion in damage to the agriculture sector has been caused, due to these floods. We tried to include disaster relief in the supplemental bill. Unfortunately we could not do it because the administration said don't even try, no way. While there is some help for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is important, FEMA cannot help the farmers and the Small Business Administration cannot help the farmers. This is a case of ``there but for the grace of God go I.'' I said this to my colleagues yesterday, and I want to say it again today. I have never voted against disaster relief assistance for anybody in the country, be it a hurricane, tornado, fire, drought, or flooding. If, God forbid, it happens to others, we want to help. This administration has said no to any emergency disaster assistance for agriculture. The President has said any emergency assistance for agriculture must come out of the farm bill. The farm bill is about loan rates, dairy, conservation and fair prices for farmers. The farm bill is about economic assistance, not natural disasters. So our message today is this: We are going to look at every appropriations bill, and if any appropriations bill comes out on the floor and there is assistance for fire or any other emergency that has happened--be it for Arizona, or for flooding in Texas, or anywhere else--we will slow up that bill. In fact, we will stop that bill if we need to until we get the commitment that there will be the funding for emergency disaster assistance for the farmers in Minnesota, or for the farmers in Nebraska, for the people we represent. Time is not neutral. People need help now. We intend to make the Senate address this issue. I yield to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I support this important supplemental appropriations bill, which primarily contains crucial spending that is immediately needed for homeland security purposes. I commend the managers for their efforts on it. I know that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member worked hard and diligently, as did others, to complete this bill. And I know that they are not responsible for its delay. I am glad the bill will now go to the President, and this funding can go quickly to meet urgent national security needs. I would like briefly to highlight three topics touched upon by the bill, items which are not the largest matters dealt with here, but which I consider to be very important. The issues are workforce development, disaster assistance and veterans' health care. First, as chair of the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, with jurisdiction over workforce development issues, I want to address the elimination of emergency funding for job retraining services through the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, which occurred late during the conference on this bill. What has happened in connection with WIA programs is, I fear, just the tip of the budgetary iceberg. Although confronted with severe economic distress and uncertainty and record unemployment, we are being told by the administration that we lack the resources for key job- training services. Having spent our surplus on tax cuts for the well to do, we do not have the resources to fund services that are essential in helping displaced workers train for and find new employment and in helping businesses find the skilled workers they need to stay competitive in our global economy. Yet investments in a skilled workforce are precisely what we need right now. As former Treasury Secretary Rubin recently said, to rebuild confidence in our financial markets and economic system, ``[b]udgeting priorities should heavily emphasize preparing our future workforce to be competitively productive in the global economy . . . '' The irony is that additional support for WIA was in the President's initial fiscal year 2002 supplemental request. He proposed $750 million for WIA, including the restoration of last year's $110 million rescission of dislocated worker formula funds. The Senate and the House followed, both including WIA funding at lower levels. But then, in the quest to reach the overall target the President and OMB Director Mitch Daniels set for the emergency supplemental, all of the WIA funding was cut. Frankly, this seems to contradict what the President is saying elsewhere. Just yesterday the President was quoted as saying that his biggest concern about Sunday's record bankruptcy filing by WorldCom was the effect on employees who lose their jobs. Well, the best thing we can do for people who have lost their jobs through Enron, WorldCom, and the other bankruptcies is to help them retrain and retool to find new jobs. And earlier this year when he submitted his supplemental request, we were told: ``The President's supplemental budget request provides the urgent assistance that is needed now to ensure that affected workers get the assistance and jobs they need.'' This decision is a harsh one for the tens of thousands of workers who will not get the training they need to retool their careers. Already they are finding that the courses they want to take are closed or they are put on endless waiting lists. Workers dislocated because of the impact of trade and certified to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance find they are unable to get training because States have run out of resources and the National Emergency Grant funds that typically see the States through such shortages are themselves depleted It is harsh as well for businesses that cannot find the skilled workers to stay competitive and take advantage of market opportunities to help fuel our economic recovery. And it also threatens to undercut WIA's key reforms. States and localities, along with their private sector partners are now at a critical stage in the process of building the new systems called for in WIA. Without adequate funding and without stable funding this essential systems building will be undermined. Moreover, all of this is happening while the new WIA infrastructure is being stretched to its limits with demands for services triggered by the catastrophic after effects of September 11, the highest unemployment in years, and the continuing dislocations from the largest bankruptcies ever seen in this Nation's history. This is why I am concerned. This is why I felt I had to speak out. I understand that we are not going to change the fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental to address this problem. But I do want my colleagues to understand the full impact of the decisions that have been made in this bill concerning some very important priorities. I urge my colleagues to reflect on these implications so that when we take up the fiscal year 2003 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill, we will be especially careful not to further undermine the WIA programs that are so critical to American workers, businesses, and our economic recovery. The second topic I would like to address is disaster assistance. As a result of severe flooding in Northwestern Minnesota 17 counties are under a federally declared disaster: Becker, Beltrami, Clay, Clearwater, Itasca, Kittson, Koochiching, Lake of the Woods, Mahnomen, Marshall, McLeod, Norman, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, Roseau, and Wright. In the 17 counties that are currently included in the federally declared disaster, 1,785 homes were damaged. In Roseau alone over 1,180 homes were damaged. I am pleased that the supplemental includes some much needed funding for FEMA. The disaster assistance included here represents a down payment in terms of the assistance that the families, businesses and communities in my State will need as they move forward and begin the process of rebuilding their homes, offices and cities. The Minnesota Recovers Task Force estimates that there will be over $85 million in disaster funding needs as a result of this spring/summer flooding. Of this amount, nearly $50 million will be eligible for FEMA funding. That will leave approximately $35 million in recovery needs that will not be covered by existing FEMA and SBA assistance programs. I am working closely with my colleagues, Senator Dayton and Representative Peterson, to secure additional flood recovery funding in the fiscal year 2003 HUD Appropriations bill. This funding will be used for the distinct purpose of meeting unmet needs for buyouts, relocation, rehabilitation, long-term recovery, and mitigation to aid the business community of Roseau, MN and the surrounding counties that have received a Federal disaster declaration. The funding will be used in coordination with other Federal, State, and local assistance. While these FEMA programs are very important, unfortunately they are not geared to handle agricultural losses. In Northwest Minnesota an extraordinary rich agriculture region now lies devastated. According to the Farm Service Agency, this season's crop losses are estimated at more than $267 million across 14 counties. Overall, total agricultural flood losses, including damage to agricultural small businesses, are estimated at more than $370 million. That is why Senator Dayton and I introduced legislation to provide disaster assistance to agricultural producers last week. This legislation is a starting point to providing the needed assistance to farmers, many of whom, without this emergency assistance will be driven off their farms. I believe the supplemental appropriations bill would have been the appropriate place to add emergency agricultural disaster assistance to cover weather-related losses. However, the Bush administration continues to oppose any emergency appropriation to provide disaster assistance to farmers. The administration's position is that in order to provide any relief to family farmers who lost their crop due to a flood or drought, money must be taken away from commodity program supports that assist other farmers. In other words, they are saying that when the President signed the farm bill, that was going to be all farmers could expect until 2008, no matter what. That doesn't work for Northwestern Minnesota. The farm bill was not a disaster-assistance bill. It is a 6-year policy to help stabilize farm income and rural economies. Its funding is absolutely needed for that purpose. We tried to include separate, emergency weather-disaster assistance in the farm bill, but the administration opposed that, too. They also opposed it when we tried to include it in the supplemental appropriations bill. When Congress decides to help areas affected by hurricanes or fires, we don't tell people to pull their emergency assistance out of somebody else's highway fund. Sometimes the Federal Government just needs to be there for people. The President needs to change his position and help us get some assistance to Northwestern Minnesota. Finally, the supplemental appropriation bill includes $417 million for veterans health care that I requested which was included in the Senate's bill. These funds are critically important to the veterans in Minnesota. The need for services has simply overwhelmed the VA and in some ways there is more of a crisis now in VA health care now than there was even during the era of flat-lined budgets. The $417 million for Veterans health care in this bill will mean that Minnesota's Network, VISN 23, will get an additional $19 million to reduce waiting times, keep clinics open, open new clinics, and improve the quality of healthcare. This is very badly needed. I want to thank Senators Mikulski and Bond on the VA-HUD Subcommittee especially, because I know they fought to keep this money in conference, as well as Senators Byrd and Stevens. We did right by veterans in this supplemental.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rockefeller for his leadership on this amendment and on health care policy. I have said to the Senator from West Virginia, it is a little bit like the E.F. Hutton ad: When E.F. Hutton speaks, people listen. Senator Rockefeller has that credibility. This is critically important. I know in Minnesota it is about $123 million in additional Medicaid funding. There is also the additional social services block grant money that would also come to Minnesota. Our State, just like many States in the country, is under siege financially. The other important feature is that one of the conditions upon receiving this is to not cut back on Medicaid or medical assistance eligibility which is extremely important. People need to be able to keep their health insurance. I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank Senator Rockefeller for stepping forward and taking the lead. I indicate to my colleagues my very strong support as a Senator from Minnesota for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question and comment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I urge the Senator--and I know he will do so--it is hard to figure out the opposition, but I hope all of us think about our States. This is an enormous contribution the Senator is making. I ask the Senator from West Virginia whether he intends to persevere and to keep it on the floor and do whatever he needs to do to bring it to a vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, normally I try not to use written text on the floor of the Senate, but I want to make sure that I say what I say in the Senate in a careful and hopefully the right way. Tuesday's missile strike against the home of Sheik Salah Shehaded was an unsettling departure from the more careful methods Israel has typically used against its terrorist enemies. The sheik, who was killed in the operation, was the Gaza terrorism chief of Hamas, a group that has slaughtered hundreds of innocent Israelis and who seeks the destruction of Israel. Unfortunately, the attack killed not only the sheik but also 14 of his family members and neighbors, including nine children--terrible, terrible, toll. It is true that these deaths were not the purpose of the operation. Unlike suicide bombers, the Israeli military does not target civilians. And perhaps, given the sheik's role in killing civilians, maybe you could argue that more innocent lives were saved than would ultimately have been lost if he had continued to live. But military planners should have known that this operation, taking place in a densely populated residential complex, might result in the death of many civilians. Surely other military options could have been considered. The rising toll on innocent civilians in this conflict is heartbreaking. There must be a greater effort by all--the Government of Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab States, and the United States--to break this cycle of revenge and spiraling violence. Four weeks ago Monday, President Bush outlined his latest ideas for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He laid out a vision of the future for the Middle East, declaring that he wanted to see two democratic states living side by side with secure borders, and he believed this goal could be achieved within 3 years. He called for movement on three tracks. First, aggressive action to end terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli citizens; second, reform of Palestinian legal and security structures; and third, substantial assistance to relieve the suffering of ordinary Palestinians who now are on the brink of humanitarian disaster. The Bush speech, with its important elements, now needs to be recast into a concrete work plan where there is movement on all three tracks. Behind the scenes, Secretary Powell and members of the Quartet have been seeking to flesh out plans for overhauling the Palestinian Authority, yet movement there has been slow. The bottom line is that the political roadmap that was missing from the President's speech has yet to appear. The United States must lead a diplomatic process to end the endless cycle of violence and get to the end game--an independent Palestinian state and security for Israel. There must be action on all fronts, or what little hope is left will vanish. I wish I had a clear answer, but thought as a Senator from Minnesota I should at least speak out in the Senate. I am absolutely convinced that there is no hope in the present course, that we have to figure out how to get from where we are back on a political track. As tiring and tiresome as it might sound to some, we have to continue to call for political negotiation. What is the alternative? There is no alternative. There is no alternative.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, with my colleague's indulgence, I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from Louisiana for 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, Eli Lilly has a discount card. It is called Lilly Answers. The card is supposed to give low-income seniors a 30-day supply of any Lilly drug for a $12 fee. Sounds like a great deal, but when one reads the fine print, it turns out that a lot of drugs are excluded. Noland Decks from Winona sent me this letter about his sister: I am writing to relate to you the prescription medicine situation for my sister, Hazel Decks, who has Parkinson's disease. Her income is such that she has qualified for the Lilly Answers program which is supposed to give her a one month supply of Permax for $12. When I approached the pharmacy to get her prescription refilled, I was informed that Eli Lilly has chosen to exclude this medication from the program, in spite of the fact that the bottle says it is manufactured by Lilly. I contacted Lilly and could find no one who would explain why. I now believe that they will not allow it because it is too expensive. The 30 day supply costs Hazel $375. For Parkinson's medication. I had two parents with Parkinson's disease. Her Social Security check is $479 a month. I give this example because in 5 minutes I cannot even begin to cover the ground, but there are about three or four thoughts that come to mind as we come close to a vote. First, I do not think, based upon what we have seen in the last month or two, anybody any longer would believe that the Arthur Andersens of this world should be writing any kind of reform legislation when it comes to securities reform, when it comes to protecting investors and consumers. I do not believe that hardly anybody in the Senate would argue that when it comes to a clean air bill or a clean water bill that environmental polluters should write that legislation. So it is, I do not believe that the pharmaceutical companies ought to be writing a prescription drug benefit plan. I think it is a mistake. What are the differences? I will not go through all the numbers. Everybody has heard the numbers. To me, the differences are as follows: In the Graham-Kennedy-Miller plan, at least there is a defined benefit. Does it sound familiar, a ``defined benefit''? Not defined contribution. Senior citizens' prescription drug coverage is part of Medicare. It is a defined benefit. They know what they are going to be eligible for and they are going to have the coverage. The competing proposal basically has the Federal Government farming out a subsidy to private health insurance plans, Medicare managed-care plans, and basically saying we hope to give enough of a subsidy that they then will provide the benefit. It is a suggested benefit. It is not a defined benefit. There is no security for senior citizens with this alternative. For my own part, I will go one step further. When there is too high a deductible or there is a doughnut hole where a lot of seniors are worried about what they are going to do about these expenses as they run up $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 a month, that is the other big issue. We do not want to have a huge gap where people get no coverage, and that is exactly what is in the competing proposal. Finally, I say to all of my colleagues, which is a different point, but I get a chance to say this, I want to see us do better on discounts and cost containment. I want to see us for sure support the Schumer- McCain amendment on generic drugs. I want to make sure this reimportation from Canada actually is put into effect--it looks like the administration does not want to--because of the huge discount for senior citizens and other seniors as well. I would personally like to see the Federal Government become a bargaining agent for 40 million Medicare recipients, and in the Graham-Kennedy-Miller bill there is allowance for the different managers around the country, benefit managers to do that work getting discounts. I want to see the States building on the Stabenow amendment and see States able to recoup some of the savings they get from exacting a discount for people with no coverage now and adding that on to medical assistance. Colleagues, what is going on is there are quite a few Senators in good faith--I don't assume bad faith--who do not believe there is a major government role here. They do not believe this ought to be part of Medicare. They are not quite sure they believe in Medicare, though it has been an enormously successful program. We should extend prescription drug benefits to Medicare and make it a clear, defined benefit that is affordable for senior citizens. That is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the 2003 Military Construction Appropriations bill provides over $10 billion in funding for planning, design, construction, and improvements for military bases around the world. A long neglected priority, the bill would provide $4.2 billion for family housing, much of which is substandard right now. Many armed forces personnel have suffered a declining quality of life in recent years despite rising Pentagon budgets. The pressing needs of dedicated men and women in uniform and their families must be addressed, especially as they continue to be mobilized for duty in response to the attacks of September 11. I want to highlight two provisions in this bill that are of particular importance to my home State of Minnesota. For a very long time, I have said that there would be an increased reliance by the Defense Department on the National Guard as budget pressures and force structure realignments continued. Since the attacks on America on September 11, the men and women of the National Guard have flown air missions to secure our skies, and they have protected airports and other vulnerable public facilities. I am pleased that we were able to include in this bill $15 million for the Duluth Air National Guard Base for an airport maintenance facility at the 148th Fighter Wing, which will provide maintenance and repair of 15 F-16 fighter aircraft. Further, the bill contains $1.45 million for the Harden Naval Reserve Center in Duluth. I am pleased that these projects are receiving the funds they deserve, and I appreciate the opportunity to work in this area with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, who, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, is especially attentive to such needs. The bill goes far in addressing many vital national needs, and I am voting for it today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could say to the Senator from Nevada, and I will relinquish the floor in a second, one of the things we need to do on our side--I know Senator Stabenow wants to speak on this. There are other Senators who also want to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Before there is any unanimous consent agreement propounded, I do want to make sure I state to my colleague from North Dakota we have quite a few Senators who have worked on this for some time and we want to make sure they do have a chance to come down. I thank my colleague from North Dakota and my colleague from Michigan, and all the other Senators on both sides of the aisle, who support this legislation. I think this has been like about 5 years of work, as I think back to when some of us first started this journey. One of the things I want to do right away is deal with one of the arguments that are made against this legislation. It is an argument by the pharmaceutical companies that, look, we have to charge American citizens a lot more because we need that money for the research. Senator Stabenow was there, Senator Graham was there, as well as Senator Miller. One of the arguments we hear over and over again from the pharmaceutical companies, the drug companies, is they need to make this excessive amount of money, they need to have the very high priced drugs because this goes to research for the miracle drugs that help everyone. When the President was in Minneapolis in my State last week, he adopted the pharmaceutical or the drug lobby's position and said that the high prices everyone sees are necessary to sustain the research and development. One of the arguments made against this reimportation bill is, if you begin to do that and people start getting discounts and we cannot charge as much, we cannot put the money into the research. Families USA came out with a report they called ``Profiting From Pain.'' They looked at the drug company's recent submissions before the Securities and Exchange Commission about their activities in 2001. They looked at the nine publicly traded companies that market the top 50 drugs to seniors. I will go over their key findings. The first finding is these large pharmaceutical companies spent $45.4 billion on marketing and advertising and administration--this is from their own SEC report--and $19 billion for research and development-- 2\1/2\ times more for marketing, advertising, and administration as for research and development. The second finding for profits over the last 10 years, profits last year as percentage of revenue, was 18.5 percent, 5.5 times the median profit for the Fortune 500 companies. The third key finding is these companies lavish huge compensation packages and even larger stock options--does this sound familiar to anyone--to the top drug executives. Mr. C.A. Heimbold, the former chairman at Bristol-Myers, had the following compensation package, not including unexercised stock options: Ready? $74.9 million; John R. Stafford, chairman of Wyeth, $44.5 million. The five highest paid executives received over $183 million last year. Looking at the unexercised stock options, Mr. Raymond Gilmartin, president and CEO of Merck, $93.3 million; Mr. C.A. Heimbold, $76.1 million; two Pfizer executives, $60.2 million and 56.5 million. I make the plea in the Senate because pharmaceutical companies do not want this bill. By the way, I said to my colleague from Michigan, who has worked so hard on this, one of the reasons I love this legislation, this helps all of our citizens, all our families. Pharmaceutical companies and wholesalers can meet every strict FDA safety rule, reimport back the prescription drugs and pass on the savings. That is what this is about. The drug industry should stop scaring citizens in our country, seniors and others, with the false claim that if there is a discount and people are charged a reasonable price, this will prevent research in medicine. I thank Families USA for their excellent study. I make the point which they made today, in light of the huge industry profits, enormous executive compensation and big marketing budgets, these claims that we need to rip people off with the obsessive, obscene profits in order to do the research, are irresponsible and wrong. The next point, by way of context of this amendment, it seems to me the drug companies in this country are making Viagra-like profits--you get the meaning of what I am saying--on the backs of American consumers, on the backs of Minnesota consumers. The thought that these companies, acting as a cartel, can make Viagra-like profits based on the misery and illness and sickness of people is obscene. We are going to do something about it and we are going to make sure people in Minnesota and people around the country get a discount and they get the same fair price that people in Canada get so people can afford these prescriptions that are so important. What does our amendment do? It allows for the reimportation of the drugs from Canada. Believe me, many citizens from Michigan and Minnesota and North Dakota know all too well what the differences are. People can save as much as 40 percent, if not more, for their prescription drugs. The amendment of Senator Dorgan, myself, Senator Stabenow, and others would allow pharmacists, drug wholesalers, and individuals to reimport safe and effective FDA-approved prescription drugs from Canada. These drugs, developed in the United States, are available in Canada for a fraction of the price of what we get charged. This would help not only senior citizens but other Minnesotans and other Americans as well. Some examples to add to what my colleague from North Dakota mentioned: Coumadin, blood thinner, same bottle, $20.99 in the United States; Canadian price is $6.23. Zocor, a cholesterol drug, is $116.69 in the United States and $53.51 in Canada--same bottle, same prescription. Permax, for Parkinson's disease, which so important to people with that neurological disease, is $398.24 in the United States, $189 in Canada. Tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug, is $287 in the United States, $24.78 in Canada. When I am traveling around Minnesota, people are asking me, more than anything else, can't we get a discount? Isn't there something to do to make the drugs affordable? A lot of Minnesotans ask why we can't have the same price as our neighbors to the north. This is the best of free trade and fair trade. Let our pharmacists and wholesalers meeting FDA guidelines reimport these drugs back and pass on the savings to the citizens we represent. We have a provision for a suspension. If there is a problem with the drug, the Secretary can stop the batch of drugs coming into the United States until the investigation is completed. Now we made it stronger, saying if there is any risk to public health, any kind of risk at all to people in this country who deals with public health where we have to worry about a batch of drugs that should not be in here, that violates safety standard, then the Secretary can stop the importation immediately. It is important to protect the health of people. We do that. This language assures that bad drugs are not going to reach patients in the United States and the Secretary at that point in time can suspend those drugs. What we cannot do, and what I want every Senator to be aware of, we cannot let the pharmaceutical industry gut this amendment. We cannot say that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, be it Democrat or Republican, can set out conditions and certify those conditions have to be met before we have the reimportation. If that is the case, we will allow any Secretary of Health and Human Services in any administration to kill this. Our citizens are tired of being ripped off. They are tired of the pharmaceutical companies running the show. Our people want a discount. We move forward with this. If, God forbid, there is any tampering with any drugs or any violation of public safety, then the Secretary of State can immediately suspend. But we do not want to have any kind of provision or any kind of amendment that passes that creates a huge loophole that enables the pharmaceutical industry to do all their behind the scenes lobbying and kill this legislation so that, in fact, the Secretary of Health and Human Services never ends up implementing it. That is not what the people in Minnesota are asking. That is not what people in the country are asking.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.