Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also want to very briefly mention another matter since I have the floor. I think the Senate is going to be united. This I hope will be less of a battle than on the horrible bankruptcy bill, credit card company bill, big banker bill. This is the week where we honor law enforcement. I said it last week. I will say it one more time. I say it to the Presiding Officer. I say it to every Senator. You should, if you get a chance, talk to some of the Capitol Hill police officers at the different stations here on the Senate side. You will be really troubled by how demoralized they feel and also how angry they are. I have never seen anything like this, and I have been here 9\1/2\ years. I have never seen anything like this. Sheila and I are pretty good friends socially and in other ways with some of the police officers. I am sure some of the Senators are. They are just livid. In July, 2 years ago, we lost two fine officers, and after all the concern that was professed, they cannot believe, in light of that and in light of the fact that we do not have two officers on every post where we need two officers just for security reasons for the public, for us--and I would argue just as important for them--that not only are we not living up to that commitment and doing what we need to do--the Sergeant at Arms on the Senate side, Jim Ziglar, has been terrific on this and Senator Bennett, the Republican chair of the appropriations legislative subcommittee; his subcommittee has been terrific on this--these police officers cannot believe what the House of Representatives has done. It is unbelievable. What the House of Representatives has done is to call for fairly dramatic--I don't have the figures. I don't know if the figures are so important. They are calling for dramatic cuts in the budget so we will have hundreds fewer, 400 fewer, police officers. I will say to some of the Representatives on the House side, and in particular I am going to say it to the Republicans because on this one there seems to be a pretty major party split where the Democrats have expressed a lot of indignation, where Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Obey spoke up rather strongly about this, in all due respect, do we need to wait for this to happen again where we only have two police officers at the memorial post over the weekend, with long lines of people, and one person shows up who is deranged, and those two officers cannot possibly handle that situation when there are all sorts of other people coming through the line, and you have to check baggage and check what people have and you have to be talking to people and keep your eye on so many different people, and it cannot therefore be prevented or avoided, and we lose more? What are you waiting for? It is absolutely outrageous. I say to the police union, the officers' union, which is a fine union, whatever the union decides to do is what the union decides to do, but I would not blame this union if the police officers do not express clearly their indignation. I cannot believe this was done. As I said last week, it is one of the most unconscionable, one of the worst things that has been done in the Congress since I have been here. I really believe that. I say to Senators, when this appropriations bill comes to the floor, I know Senator Reid, who is a former Capitol Police officer, and I know I will be out here and others will be, too, with an amendment that will get the funding up. All of us will agree, Republicans and Democrats, that we are in good shape on the Senate side, and I am proud of that. I say to the Chair, what I would rather not see is two different operations where on the Senate side we have the funding and do what we need to do to make sure these officers are given the resources for their own security, much less the security of the public, and then on the House side, they have a completely different situation. I wanted to bring this to the attention of my colleagues because we are going to have a very strong showing on the Senate side. I do not believe it is posturing just to show one is on the side of the police officers. People feel strongly about it in the Senate. We went through far less than the families of Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut. We went through a living hell here. We do not want it to happen again. We do not know whether we can prevent it from happening again, but we certainly ought to do everything we can. Cutting 400 police officers is not doing everything we can.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have with me an investigative article from the May 15, 2000 issue of Time magazine, the title of which is ``Soaked by Congress, Lavished with campaign cash, lawmakers are `reforming' bankruptcy--punishing the downtrodden to catch a few cheats,'' by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, who are well known for their investigative journalism--some of the best investigative journalism in the country. Mr. President, I thank these two journalists for the work they have done over the years. I used to assign their books to classes, and I think it is very good investigative journalism. Let me read from one part of this lengthy article. I sent a copy of this out to colleagues. I commend this piece to all of them. Under the legislation before Congress, new means tests would force more borrowers into Chapter 13--leading to still more failures--and would eliminate bankruptcy as an option for others. For this second group, life will be especially bleak. Listen to their future as described by Brady Williamson, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and was chairman of the former National Bankruptcy Review Commission, appointed by Congress in 1995: ``A family without access to the bankruptcy system is subject to garnishment proceedings, to multiple collection actions, to repossession of personal property and to mortgage foreclosure. There is virtually no way to save their home and, for a family that does not own a home, no way to ever qualify to buy one.'' The wage earner will be ``faced with what is essentially a life term in debtor's prison.'' Brady Williamson, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Wisconsin, is joined by law professors all across the country in their strong critique in, I would really say, condemnation of this bankruptcy bill. Again, he was the chairman of the former National Bankruptcy Review Commission, which was appointed in 1995. The reason I mention this is that I want to take a few minutes to talk about this bill. When there was an effort to separate this bankruptcy bill out from minimum wage legislation, I opposed it. I opposed the unanimous consent agreement. Senator Feingold was out here on the floor with me. We did this because we believe this piece of legislation deserves more scrutiny, albeit it passed by a big margin in the Senate. But I am telling you that many colleagues, I think, had no idea of some of the provisions that were in this legislation--some really egregious provisions. We have learned something about what many of us call the pension raid, which basically for the first time would enable these creditors, as a condition for making the loan, to call upon borrowers to say, look, you can also put a lien on my pension. That has never been done before. But there are other egregious provisions as well. I again point out that last week Time magazine published this investigative article entitled ``Soaked by Congress,'' written by Donald Barlett and James Steele. I think this is a true picture of who files for bankruptcy in America. You will find a far different profile of who the people are than from the skewed version that was used to justify this ``bankruptcy reform bill'' passed by the House and the Senate. I would like to give my colleagues an example of the kind of families we are talking about--working families, hard-pressed families, crushed by debt, people who need a fresh start. Tomorrow, Senator Kennedy will be coming with other Senators --I will join them--in speaking about this bill as well. Since I came to this floor and I objected to any unanimous consent agreement to separate this bankruptcy bill, passing it and moving it forward, and since I have done everything I know how as a Senator to stop this bill, I want to discuss why. First, I will talk about this legislation from the perspective of ordinary people, people who don't have a lot of money--not the big banks and not the big credit card companies that have been running the show on this legislation. I will read the beginning of this article by Bartlett and Steele: Congress is about to make life a lot tougher--and and more expensive--for people like the Trapp family of Plantation, Fla. As if their life isn't hard enough already. Eight-year- old Annelise, the oldest of the three Trapp children, is a bright, spunky, dark-haired wisp who suffers from a degenerative muscular condition. She lives in a wheel-chair or bed, is tied to a respirator at least eight hours a day, eats mostly through a tube and requires round-the-clock nursing care. Doctors have implanted steel rods in her back to stem the curvature of her spine. Her parents, Charles and Lisa, are staring at a medical bill for $106,373 from Miami Children's Hospital. then there are the credit-card debts. The $10,310 they owe Bank One. The $5,537 they owe Chase Manhattan Bank. The $8,222 they owe MBNA America. The $4,925 they owe on their Citibank Preferred Visa card. The $6,838 they owe on their Discover card. The $6,458 they owe on their MasterCard. ``People don't understand, unless they have a medically needy child, these kinds of circumstances,'' says Charles Trapp, 42, a mail carrier. Most of the people who file for bankruptcy under chapter 7 for a new start, about 40 percent-plus, are people who have been put under because of a medical bill. The studies don't talk about a lot of abuse. They mention 3, 4 or 5 percent of the people at most abusing this system. Most of the people in the country who do have to start over find themselves in these awful situations because there has been a divorce and now there is a single parent or because people have lost their jobs or because people face catastrophic medical bills. We are going to punish these families? The figures on the amount of money pouring in, let me be clear, are not on one to one. I am not going to stand here and say every single Senator who disagrees with me on this disagrees with me because they received a lot of money from big credit card companies. Then someone can turn around, and I know the presiding Chair will agree, and say every position you take is based on money you have received. That is simply an analysis that should be unacceptable. I will not do that. It is not fair to people I serve with and I don't believe it. However, from an institutional view of who has power and who doesn't have power in America, we see an industry that has a tremendous amount of clout, that certainly contributes a lot of money--Republicans and Democrats alike--that has the lobbyists, is certainly well connected and, of course, the people whom we are talking about, such as the Trapp family, don't have the same kind of connections. We are, I think, about to do something very egregious to these families. Yesterday was Mother's Day--Sheila and I marched in the Million Mom March and were proud to do so--so I'd like to read from a letter signed by 70 scholars at our Nation's law schools who are opposed to this legislation about how this bill will affect mothers. They write directly to this issue of how low-income, women-headed households will be devastated by this bankruptcy bill. As the heads of the economically most vulnerable families, they have a special stake in the pending legislation. Women heads of households are now the largest demographic group in bankruptcy, and according to the credit industry's own data, they are the poorest. The provisions in this bill, particularly the provisions that apply without regard to income, will fall hardest on them. A single mother with dependent children who is hopelessly insolvent and whose income is far below the national median income still would have her bankruptcy case dismissed if she does not present copies of income tax returns for the past three years--even if those returns are in the possession of her ex-husband. A single mother who hoped to work through a chapter 13 payment plan would be forced to pay every penny of the entire debt owed on almost worthless items of collateral, such as used furniture or children's clothes, even if it meant that successful completion of a repayment plan was impossible. I don't think the choices in this debate could be stated any more starkly. The core question is, Are we on the side of these big credit companies and these banks or are we on the side of too many women in this country struggling to support their families? I will mention a few other provisions in this legislation that are punitive. I already mentioned the pension grab. People didn't even seem to know about that provision. That is being reworked. Good. I want to see the bill improved, although a wise proverb comes to mind: Never put good stitching in a rock cloth. I think this bill is fundamentally flawed--not the Senators who support the bill, the bill. Section 102 of this bill removes the ability of a debtor to seek sanctions against a creditor who brought coercive, frivolous claims against the debtor, as long as the claim in question is less than $1,000. If someone has a loan for less than $1,000, a creditor can intimidate and threaten legal action, even if he doesn't intend to take legal action with impunity. Section 105 imposes mandatory credit counseling on debtors before they can seek bankruptcy relief at the debtors' expense--as if the debtors have the money for this. This is regardless of whether the bankruptcy would be the result of simple overspending or the result of unavoidable expenses such as catastrophic medical expense. There is no waiver of this requirement. People can end up being evicted. Section 311 ends the practice of stopping eviction proceedings against tenants who are behind on rent who file for bankruptcy. This is critical for tenants under current law. I could go on and on. I speak from the Senate floor to the people in the country. This is a reform issue. I talked about who has the clout in America and who doesn't. At one time, there was a bill that came to the floor of the Senate, a much better bill, that I voted against. It was a 99-1 vote. I thought that bill was too harsh and too punitive, but most of my colleagues disagreed. People had done good work on it. Now this bill that passed the United States, it is as Barlett and Steele pointed out in their very important piece, it is completely one sided. There is no call for accountability or responsibility on the part of the creditor, credit card companies. There are harsh provisions, many of which--most of which--all of which, frankly, disproportionately affect low-income people, moderate-income people, women, working families, you name it, based upon the assumption that most people who file for bankruptcy abuse the system--which is not true. Most people are put under because of a medical bill or they have been out of work or because there is a divorce. This bill is just a carbon copy of what this credit card industry wants. I objected to the unanimous consent agreement to try to move this bill, first to decouple it from the minimum wage and then to try basically to move it through. I do not want to. I want to try to stop this piece of legislation. Because different Senators are entitled to their own viewpoint, I will be pleased, as we get a chance to really look at the provisions of this legislation carefully, as in the case of this Barlett and Steele piece, and if this bill comes back before the Senate and we have the debate, I will be willing to agree to time limits on amendments--you name it. But we need to have a thorough debate on this bill. I am not going to let it go through by unanimous consent or continue in any way, shape, or form. The effort that is underway is to take this legislation and put it into an unrelated bill; the e-signatures bill is the latest, the effort to take this bankruptcy--quote, reform--bill and put it into the conference committee on e-signature legislation. It has nothing to do with e-signature legislation. Then the effort is to bring the conference report back to the Senate where it cannot be amended and can be only voted up or down. It is clever enough, but the truth of the matter is, again, my goal in life is to have people interested in politics, public affairs. Even if they vote Republican, I am all for them if they are interested in public affairs. That is my view. I just don't want people opting out and being disillusioned and becoming cynical because then I think our country suffers, I think representative democracy suffers. That is what I believe in more than anything else. This is a reform issue. People hate this. They hate the way this process works, where you can take a bill and now put it into a completely unrelated piece of legislation, outside the scope of the conference committee, tuck it in, do it at midnight, do it late at night, do it when people cannot see it, do it in whatever way you can, in the most private way possible, and then just try to push it through. It is a neat parliamentary technique, it is a neat trick through this process, this legislative process. But it is an outrage. I do not think Senators should support this. I certainly am going to challenge this question on the scope of conference. I think we had a ruling on this which was an unfortunate ruling. We will have to go back through that. There are other Senators, Senator Harkin, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy--a number of others--just to mention a few who I think feel very strongly about this. The more Senators really know what is in this piece of legislation, the more Senators who read this investigative report in Time magazine, the more Senators are going to be worried about this. They are going to be worried about this legislation going through in this form. There are good Senators who have worked on this legislation, some I consider to be some of the best. But this legislation is fundamentally flawed. I speak about it today. I am going to continue to do everything I can to stop it. I want people in the country to know what the effort is right now, which is to put this piece of legislation into an unrelated conference report. I want to make it clear on the floor of the Senate that everything I know how to do as a Senator, to insist that this bill goes back in the regular order and comes back through this legislative process--which will give us an opportunity to look at other provisions we did not know were in this bill, such as the pension grab amendment--is what I insist on. I think other Senators feel the same way. I do not believe Senators, Democrats or Republicans alike, whether they agree or disagree on this particular piece of legislation--I do not think they should accept the proposition we can just put it into an unrelated conference report. We are heading nowhere good if we start doing that with different pieces of legislation. We are heading nowhere good as a legislative body. It is the wrong way to legislate. It is the wrong way to conduct our business. Then the question is, Paul, do you have a right to just come out here and object to a unanimous consent agreement? Yes, I do. We had a minimum wage and we had a bankruptcy bill tied together, and there were tax cuts included with minimum wage provisions. But tax measures need to originate in the House of Representatives under the Constitution and the Senate leadership knows that. If that mistake was made--to unconstitutionally add the tax cuts--and I oppose this bill and, by our own rules, it requires unanimous consent to correct the mistake, of course I have a right to object, especially if I think this is an egregious piece of legislation which hits hard at the most vulnerable, low-income citizens in the United States of America. Of course I have the right to do that. I say to the majority leader, if he wants to bring this bill back on the floor, let's have at it. We will even have some time agreements on some amendments. But we will have a thorough debate on this, and I will have a chance to point out many egregious provisions in this legislation in a way we were not able to last time. Then we will see where we go. But if this gets put into a conference committee--and I hope there is enough pressure from other Senators and I hope there is enough pressure from the public that this does not happen. That is the best outcome. I hope the journalists will write about this piece of legislation and will write about what could very well happen here because I think it is indicative of what does not work well here in the legislative process. If this gets folded into a conference report, I have no doubt a number of Senators--we will do everything we can to hold it up in every way possible. But my hope is we do this the right way and not the wrong way. The right way is, let's have a little bit more of a focus and a little more spotlight on this piece of legislation. To reiterate, I wanted to take just a few minutes today to talk about the so-called bankruptcy ``reform'' bill which some Members of this body are trying to force down the throat of working families. As I hope my colleagues are aware, as I speak here today this punitive legislation is being negotiated by a small group of staff working for a handful of members in a secret ``shadow'' conference. Their plan is to attach this legislation to an unrelated conference report and pass the bill with minimal public scrutiny. When you really look at what's in this bill, and what's driving this bill, it's really not surprising that some of my colleagues have been trying to do this behind closed doors. But recently, there has been an increasing drum beat of outrage and attention from outside Congress both on the bill itself and the desperate tactics being used to pass it. As I said, last week Time magazine published an investigative article about the bill, entitled ``Soaked by Congress,'' The article, written by reporters Dan Bartlett and Jim Steele, is a detailed look at the true picture of who files for bankruptcy in America. You will find it far different from the skewed version that was used to justify the bankruptcy ``reform'' bill passed by the House and Senate. Last week I sent a dear colleague around with a copy of the article. I hope all my colleagues saw it. Tomorrow I believe a group of Senators will speak in the morning about this article, but I'd like to talk about it this afternoon for just a few minutes in the hope that some of you will take another look at this bill, take another look at what it will do to working families, folks crushed by debt, folks who need a fresh start. I want my colleagues to look at this bill from the perspective of ordinary folks--not the big banks and credit card companies. I'd like to read the beginning of the article, it begins: Congress is about to make life a lot tougher--and more expensive--for people like the Trapp family of Plantation, Fla. As if their life isn't hard enough already. Eight-year- old Annelise, the oldest of the three Trapp children, is a bright, spunky, dark-haired wisp who suffers from a degenerative muscular condition. She lives in a wheelchair or bed, is tied to a respirator at least eight hours a day, eats mostly through a tube and requires round-the-clock nursing care. Doctors have implanted steel rods in her back to stem the curvature of her spine. Her parents, Charles and Lisa, are staring at a medical bill for $106,373 from Miami Children's Hospital. Then there are the credit-card debts. The $10,310 they owe Bank One. The $5,537 they owe Chase Manhattan Bank. The $8,222 they owe MBNA America. The $4,925 they owe on their Citibank Preferred Visa card. The $6,838 they owe on their Discover card. The $6,458 they owe on their MasterCard. ``People don't understand, unless they have a medically needy child, these kinds of circumstances,'' says Charles Trapp, 42, a mail carrier. Now I ask my colleagues, is there one thing in this bill that would have helped this family head off bankruptcy? Absolutely not, this bill would simply make it harder for them to get the relief they needed to take care of themselves and their daughter. Why aren't we talking about what could have kept this family out of bankruptcy? What does this bill do to help a woman or man who wants to educate themselves so they can earn a better living for their family? What does this bill do to keep ordinary folks from being overwhelmed by medical expenses? What does this bill do to promote economic stability for working families? Shouldn't the goal be keeping families out of circumstances where they can't pay their debts instead of punishing them once it's too late? I believe if my colleagues really wanted to reduce the number of bankruptcies they would focus more on providing a helping hand up rather than removing the safety net. If they really wanted to tackle bankruptcy, they would take on the credit card companies and their abusive tactics. Yesterday was Mother's Day Mr. President, I would like to read from a letter, signed by approximately 70 scholars at our nation's law schools, who are opposed to this legislation. They write directly to this issue of how low income women headed households will be devastated by this legislation: As the heads of the economically most vulnerable families, they have a special stake in the pending legislation. Women heads of households are now the largest demographic group in bankruptcy, and according to the credit industry's own data, they are the poorest. The provisions in this bill, particularly the provisions that apply without regard to income, will fall hardest on them. A single mother with dependent children who is hopelessly insolvent and whose income is far below the national median income still would have her bankruptcy case dismissed if she does not present copies of income tax returns for the past three years--even if those returns are in the possession of her ex-husband. A single mother who hoped to work through a chapter 13 payment plan would be forced to pay every penny of the entire debt owed on almost worthless items of collateral, such as used furniture or children's clothes, even if it meant that successful completion of a repayment plan was impossible. I don't think the choices in this debate can be made any more stated any more starkly. The core question is this: Will colleagues be on the side of these women, struggling to raise their families? Or do they see these women as the banks and credit card companies do: just an economic opportunity ripe for exploitation? A constituent from Crystal, Minnesota wrote to my office last July to tell me about her experience with bankruptcy. Her life was very much like any of ours until an injury forced her to leave the financial security of her factory job. She worked multiple minimum wage jobs for several years as her marriage fell apart and her daughter began a descent into deep clinical depression. In the meantime, she enrolled in computer school so that she could pursue a career that would give her and her daughter a stable income. She purchased a computer on credit so she could spend more time working at home. In time, the payments on the computer, her mortgage and her daughter's medical bills became too much, and she fell behind on debt payments. When creditors approached her, she tried to work out a repayment schedule that she could meet. Some were willing to do so. However, she says in her letter: What I want you to know specifically is that this one credit card company would not offer any reductions in the interest rate, demanded over one quarter of my entire monthly income, did not care if I could not meet my payments for the most basic requirements of human existence, suggested that I use a food shelf, and they refused to acknowledge that my child was suicidal and that their harassing phone calls to my house nearly caused her to overdose on the only non- prescription pain relievers that I could have for myself. So she filed for bankruptcy. She has begun to rebuild her life and she ended her letter by saying: Please to not vote for Senate Bill 625 or any other bill that makes bankruptcy harder for people who find themselves caught in the unforeseen predicaments of life for which they have no control. It is not fair to pass a bill that helps the credit card companies by hurting people like me without forcing them to look at what they are doing, and how they respond. They have many options that could be used without creating the emotional trauma that forces hard working people to choose the relief of bankruptcy. What the Bartlett and Steele article makes very clear is that these stories are typical in our bankruptcy courts today. And what does this bill do to these folks? It makes it more difficult to file, harder to get a fresh start, allows them to discharge less debt. Forces them to pay more in attorney's fees or maybe make an attorney cost prohibitive--but not for the big banks. It forces families into Chapter 13 which \2/3\ which of all debtors currently fail to complete because of economic circumstances. This legislation allows them to be victimized by coercive debt collectors and abolishes critical tenant protections. This is reform? Let me be clear: The bankruptcy bills passed by House and Senate are ill-conceived, unjust, and imbalanced. They impose harsh penalties on families who file for bankruptcy in good faith as a last resort, and address a ``crisis'' that is self-correcting. They reward the predatory and reckless lending by banks and credit card companies which fed the crisis in the first place, and it does nothing to actually prevent bankruptcy by promoting economic security in working families. Here are just a few of the punitive provisions in the Senate passed bankruptcy bill: No. 1. Section 102 of the bill would remove the ability to a debtor to seek sanctions against a creditor who brought coercive, frivolous claims against a debtor--as long as the claim in question is less than $1000. So in other words, as long as the loan was for less than $1000, a creditor may intimidate the borrower or threaten legal action it doesn't intend to take (all illegal under current law). No. 2. Section 105 imposes mandatory credit counseling on debtors before the can seek bankruptcy relief--at the debtors expense. This is regardless of whether the bankruptcy would be the result of simple overspending or something unavoidable like sudden medical expenses. There is no waiver of this requirement if the debtor needs to make an emergency bankruptcy filing to stave off eviction or utility shutoff. No. 3. Section 311 will end the practice under current law of stopping eviction proceedings against tenants who are behind on rent who file for bankruptcy. This is a critical right of tenants under current law. No. 4. Section 312 will make a person ineligible to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy if he or she has successfully emerged from bankruptcy within the past 5 years--even if it was a successful chapter 13 reorganization where the debtor paid off all their creditors. No. 5. The bill's new reporting, filing and paperwork requirements will make bankruptcy process more onerous than ever before--expensive legal expertise will be more necessary, a burden which low and moderate income families with high debt loads can ill afford. But several sections of the bill create a variety of disincentives for attorneys to represent consumers in bankruptcy. The results of these provisions will be that some attorneys will leave the practice of consumer bankruptcy, and others will have to raise their fees to account for the increased expenses and risks involved. This in turn will lead to more consumers being unable to afford an attorney and either obtaining no relief or falling prey to nonattorney petition preparers who provide services which are usually incompetent and often fraudulent. No. 6. The means test to determine which debtors can file Chapter 7 bankruptcy--as opposed to Chapter 13--is inflexible and arbitrary. It is based on IRS standards not drafted for bankruptcy purposes that do not take into account individual family needs for expenses like transportation, food and rent. It disadvantages renters and individuals who rely on public transportation and benefits higher income individuals with more property and debt.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is interesting the Senator from Kansas is in the chair because I know we are in agreement on this, but I at least want to make the appeal to my colleagues that, for my own part, I believe it is good that in our budget resolution we made allowance for additional funding for help and assistance to farmers. It was somewhere close to $7 billion. My hope is we will not do this in the process of an emergency appropriations bill; that we will give care to how we allocate this money, how we get assistance out to farmers. My fear is--and maybe it will be a good arrangement--that if we double AMTA payments and put it into the conference report to accompany the crop insurance bill, we will have lost our opportunity to have hearings in the Ag Committee and have some focus, some substantive discussion, some careful discussion about how we can make sure we target the assistance to those producers that need it the most. I voted for AMTA payments. I am not intellectually arrogant. I figured, what help we could get the people, get it. I had an uncomfortable feeling that some of the landowners who were not even farmers and some of the largest operators least in need were getting more than they needed. The flip side was the people who needed help the most were not getting it. I do not want an inverse relationship of assistance to need. Some, regarding the AMTA payments, suggest that is what is happening. At a minimum, I say to my colleagues, we should, between now and the end of June--we have time--have some hearings in the Ag Committee. We should have some careful discussion and deliberation about how we get this assistance out to family farmers. It should be more targeted than the AMTA payments have been. I do not believe it is appropriate, again, to deal with such an important issue and such an important question by putting it into another conference report, this particular one being on crop insurance. When we went through the budget process and allocated this money, we were making a statement that we did not want to be forced into a situation of one more time getting emergency funding out there without any deliberation as to how. I thought this meant we were, on the part of the authorization committee, Senator Lugar's committee, going to have hearings and an opportunity for Senators and people from the countryside to talk about the best way to get this assistance out to the countryside to help the people most in need. It looks to me, again, that we may be making an end run around that process, and that is a mistake. I speak out for the hearings. I speak out for deliberations. I speak out for doing something about the price crisis other than every year just getting money out to people. Most of the producers in the country would far rather get a decent price. That is a whole other discussion and debate which I hope we will have. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was going to speak for about 15 minutes, but if my colleague had expected to speak as one of the managers, I don't want to precede him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow Senator Grassley and Senator Moynihan for a period of up to 15 minutes on the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California follow me. She has a very lengthy statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may take 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I now turn my attention to this bill. I thank both the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from New York, two exceptional Senators. I am going to divide my remarks into two parts. We have some other Senators, Senators Feingold and Feinstein, who are going to talk at great length about what happened in the conference committee. I am going to speak to that briefly. I shall not take a lot of time. But I say to both Senators that I will be pleased to come back later on this afternoon, if you need me, because I think we need to put a focus on what happened. I am in some disagreement with both my colleagues for, I hope, substantive reasons, which I will go into in a moment on the overall bill. It is not because of either one of the Senators on the floor managing this bill. But we had an amendment--Feinstein-Feingold, Feingold-Feinstein; I don't know the order. It doesn't matter; they are together--regarding the HIV/AIDS drugs in Africa. We will go into the specifics of the purpose of this amendment in a moment. But the purpose was to figure out a way that these countries could afford the combination of drugs that could help treat this illness so people wouldn't die. I strongly support the amendment my colleagues introduced. The amendment was accepted by the bill's managers, Senators Roth and Moynihan. It was simple. It basically prohibited the U.S. Government-- history is not very inspiring, frankly--or any agent of the U.S. Government from pressuring African countries to revoke or change laws aimed at increasing access to HIV/AIDS drugs so long as the laws in question passed by these countries adhered to existing international law and international standards. In other words, this amendment said to the executive branch-- colleagues, I am being bipartisan in my condemnation, if you will--stop twisting arms, White House and others, of African countries that are basically using legal means to improve access of their citizens to HIV/ AIDS pharmaceuticals. I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold for this amendment. One would think this effort to make anti-AIDS drugs more cheaply available to citizens in African countries--so long as these countries didn't violate any WTO rules--would be acceptable to every Senator and every Representative and every human being. I think for a while the administration and others leaned on some of these governments to not use ``parallel'' importing in addition to local manufacturers, which is sort of interesting because some have legislation dealing with this subject. In other words, they would basically go to other countries and try to import FDA-approved drugs back from other countries at much less cost. The ``why'' of this is because 13 million African lives have been lost since the onset of this crisis. Today, there are some 23 million African people infected with the AIDS virus--men, women, and children. This was a modest amendment. This was the right thing to do. I don't blame my colleagues. It is their institutional position. The Senator from Iowa and the Senator from New York speak with pride about this legislation. I am going to dissent from some of the legislation dealing with some other issues. But I don't think there is much to be proud of in terms of what happened in this conference. They fought. But let's look at the result after this amendment is taken out. Honest to goodness, I say to Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold, I have absolutely no idea--well, I do actually have some ideas as to why there is opposition. But I want to speak for the people of Minnesota. I guarantee both Senators Feingold and Feinstein that 99.99 percent of the people in my State of Minnesota are behind their amendment. I guarantee them that if anybody attempts to do this in the light of day, 99.99 percent of the people in this country support this amendment. It is the right thing to do. Our values tell us we should do this. If these governments aren't violating any trade policy and they can make these drugs more available to their populace--the people there don't have a lot of money; they can't afford this cocktail of drugs--then people can have some accessibility and we can save lives given the magnitude of this crisis. What is happening is devastating. People in Minnesota say: God bless you for doing this. How do these conferees--whoever they are--justify pressuring these countries with, in some cases, a life expectancy that has dropped by 15 years? What arrogance to tell these governments they cannot use all the legal means at their disposal to make sure the people in their countries, men and women and children, have access to these drugs. Otherwise, more people suffer and more people die. This is another example of why people in this country become so furious about some of what happens here. I love being a Senator. I love public service. But sometimes it is just too much. It really is. This amendment was accepted. If we had a vote on this amendment, I think it would be 100 to 0. However, it is taken out in conference. I guarantee people in the country are for this. Why don't we turn our attention to the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical companies? I can guarantee they were not worried about losing customers in Africa because the people cannot afford their prices. They were worried about any kind of effort--regarding these drugs that could save people's lives--at making them more affordable might cut into their profits. That is what they are worried about. This is a Fortune 500 report, of April 17, 2000. The annual Fortune 500 report on American business is out. Guess what. The pharmaceutical industry ranks first in profits. In the words of Fortune magazine--and I absolutely love this quote; I wish I made it up myself, but I can't plagiarize: Whether you gauge profitability by median return or revenues, assets or equity, pharmaceuticals had a Viagra kind of year. When the average Fortune 500 industry in the United States returned 5-percent profits as a percentage of revenue, the pharmaceutical industry returned 18.6 percent--the automobile industry, a pretty big industry, 3.5 percent; chemicals, 5.1 percent; airlines, 5.7 percent; telecommunications, 11.7 percent; pharmaceuticals, 18.6-percent profits. I can anticipate the reaction of some: There goes that Senator from Minnesota, out there railing about profits. The idea that this industry can make such excessive profit off the sickness, misery, illness, and, in the case of Africa with this amendment, death of people, is obscene. I say to this industry: You may have had Viagra profits, but you are making your profits off the sickness, misery, illness, and death of people. And it is obscene. You got your greedy paws into this conference committee. You were able to use all of the money you contribute to the Congress and all of the political power you have and you were able to get this amendment out, take it out. The result of that is many people--millions of people-- will die. For a while, the administration was involved in this. I am not proud of that. They were pushing hard, putting pressure on these governments. This amendment says you can't use any government money for any of this kind of lobbying, to try to prevent a government, which legally is trying to do what it can do to make sure these drugs are more affordable. That is what this amendment said. It got taken out of conference committee. Can anyone imagine that happening? The Fortune 500 report stated: ``Viagra kind of year.'' I am honored to support my two colleagues. Statistics show 23 million people in Africa are infected with the AIDS virus. By the way, I do not believe that it is pandering or appealing to some special interest for me to be speaking about a disease that infects more than 15,000 young people every day. I am not appealing to any special interest. I am representing values of Minnesotans. I am representing the values of the American people--which, obviously, were not the values of some people in this conference committee which took this amendment out. I oppose this bill for that reason alone. I have some other reasons for speaking in opposition to this bill. I think what has happened is absolutely egregious. I would like to say to the pharmaceutical companies: Your days of being able to do this are over. I am not sure that is the case, but people in the country are getting sick of you. They are really getting tired of these companies. They are similar to a cartel. They charge excessive prices, they gouge Americans, they do everything they can to make sure other countries with large numbers of poor people, that the governments cannot do what they are legally entitled to do to get the drugs to people and to make them affordable. It is absolutely unbelievable. The economic question and the political question is, Does this Congress belong to people in the country or does it belong to people in the pharmaceutical industry? The answer on the basis of what happened to this amendment is it belongs to the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, the pharmaceutical industry has great representation here in Washington. It is the rest of the people who do not. This is a real reform issue. This is about people who are dying in Africa. It is also, when we get into this debate about pharmaceutical coverage for people in our country, people who all too often in our country can die--not anywhere near the same magnitude. I think of senior citizens in my State who spend $300, $400, $500, $600 a month for drugs they cannot afford. And this industry makes not a profit--great, make profits, but do not make obscene profits off of the sickness, misery, and death of people. We are going to be out here today speaking about this over and over and over again. I do not think the pharmaceutical companies will like it. I would not. I doubt whether any Senator is going to come out here to defend them. I do not even know whether anybody in the conference committee would speak out. Let's have dueling press conferences today. Let's have different press conferences. The people who took out this amendment ought to speak publicly about why they did it. Part B: This legislation, I know, is called the African Growth and Opportunity Act--I heard both my colleagues speak--and enhanced Caribbean Basin Initiative. But I will say this one more time. Every attempt that we made with this legislation to make sure these benefits would trickle down to the people was defeated. I think the message of this trade bill to African and Caribbean countries is a double message. Here is what it boils down to. For people in the United States, this is the message: If you should dare to try to organize, join a union, and bargain collectively to get a better wage, to get more civilized working conditions, to try to get health care coverage for your children, we are gone. We are on our way to these other countries because we can pay, as Wal-Mart is paying, 14 cents an hour in China. We can pay 14 cents an hour; we are gone. In this trade bill to African and Caribbean countries, the message is, if you should dare to have even child labor standards, much less basic human rights standards, much less the right of people to organize and join a union to fight for themselves, then you do not get our investment. That is what this trade bill says. So this is not a question of the first trade bill since NAFTA or are we internationalists or are we not? We had a bill--Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. on the House side, Senator Feingold on the Senate side--that expanded Africa's access to U.S. markets, but it also included labor rights and genuine debt relief. That is really important. We had jubilee. We had people here in Washington. When you look at sub-Saharan Africa, about a quarter of its export earnings are lost to its never-ending foreign debt service. If you really want to talk about what we need to help these countries, there you have it. We had an alternative bill. I do not think it was ever voted on in the House. This is not about whether or not you are an internationalist or isolationist. My father was born in Ukraine. He lived in Russia. He fled persecution in 1914. He never was able to see his family again. His family was, in all likelihood, murdered by Stalin. I grew up as an internationalist. I have said on the floor of the Senate--I get to say it once; I will not go on and on about this--it is a story that means something to me. He was almost 50 when I was born, and he was old country and he was an embarrassment because he did not fit in with my friends' parents. He just wasn't cool. But when I got to be high school age, I realized what a treasure he was. He spoke ten languages fluently and I miss him dearly. He was a very wise person--profound. So Sunday through Thursday night at 10 o'clock, we would meet in the kitchen and we would have hot tea and sponge cake and he would talk about the world. I am ``not an internationalist.'' I am not going to let anybody put that label on me. The question is what kind of trade, under what kind of terms? Who decides who benefits and who is asked to sacrifice? Those are the questions that are before us. Every time I go to some of these trade meetings and I hear the ministers from some of the developing countries say: Those of you, Senator Wellstone, who are opposed to these trade bills, you are in opposition to the poor--I always look for the poor there. I never see the poor there. I see trade ministers; I see the elites; but I don't see the poor. But then, luckily, since I get a chance to work with the human rights community, I get to either meet with or hear about the poor and the citizens in these countries, ordinary people who are trying to get better wages, who are trying not to work with chemicals that are going to kill them, who are trying to do something about child labor conditions, who are trying to do something about the poisoning of their environment, who want to have jobs with dignity and who get thrown in jail for trying to change their lives for the better. They tell me that all this discussion about the poor and how great this is for the poor in these countries is a bit disingenuous, as they see it. My colleagues can have a different point of view, and do--many, most, the vast majority. My last point is this: I don't think I am going to do justice to this. But I saw an interesting piece in American Prospect that Bob Reich wrote, our former Secretary of Labor, that many of us might actually consider as a middle ground. Basically his argument went as such. He said, assume for a moment, Paul, even if you don't want to--he didn't use my name, but I felt like he was speaking to me--even if you don't want to agree, just assume for the moment the position of those who make the argument, ``Like it or not, this really will lead to economic growth for these countries, and this is a better chance for people than they have right now.'' Then consider your own position, which I have tried to lay out today. He was saying, why not have some kind of framework that says when you have such bills, they pass, and the proponents say they will lead to economic growth and more opportunities, then what you would do would be to have a commitment, a priori, beforehand, commensurate with that growth and more opportunities and the country is doing better, minimum wage is going up and labor standards then put into effect. I think it is an interesting idea. Maybe that will be a middle ground eventually where some of us can come together. But right now there is no middle ground to this. I will say it one more time. I know this bill is called an opportunity act and all the rest, but I think that is the message to this legislation--not the bill that Representative Jackson and Senator Feingold introduced--to people in this country. You can't blame ordinary citizens. The polls show pretty conclusively that people with incomes under $60,000 or thereabouts are more than a little bit suspicious of these agreements. They do not think they are going to be in their best interests. They think they are going to be great for the big multinational companies but not them. You cannot lay blame on them for thinking that way because the message of this bill is, again, if you try to organize, try to join a union, try to fight for higher wages, these countries will go to Africa, Mexico, wherever, where they do not have to go by any of this. Goodbye. Then the message to the people in these countries in this legislation is: Governments, people in these countries, don't you dare join a union. Don't you dare fight for your family. Don't you dare try to get better wages. Don't you dare try to abolish these abominable, exploitative child-labor conditions. Don't you do any of that because if you do, you will not get our investment. That is the message of this legislation. I have spoken about the amendment that was deleted. I believe what happened in the conference committee is atrocious, and I have laid out the basis of my opposition to this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Hill just came out today, and the headline is ``Capitol Police face loss of 400 in 2001 budget cut.'' The U.S. Capitol Police force would be reduced by more than 400 officers under a bill approved Tuesday by the House Appropriations Committee. And then later on there is a quote from John Lucas, chairman of the U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee. He says: This budget cut comes on the heels of promises to improve Capitol security for members, staff, visitors and the officers who protect this wonderful institution. ``Where is the passion of yesterday's promises? What happened to the commitments to the officers who protect you and to their survivors?'' he continued, in an attempt to invoke the concern expressed by Congress shortly after the 1998 shootings. That was, of course, Officer Chestnut and Agent Gibson. Today, at 3:30, there will be an appointment of a new police chief. What a way for the new police chief to be sworn in. I spoke to our Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Ziglar, about this. Senator Bennett, Senator Feinstein, with key positions, care deeply about this issue. I find this to be, in the years I have been in the Senate, one of the most unconscionable decisions that has ever been made. I just for the life of me don't get it, albeit I have my own emotion on this question, and I have spoken on the floor many times. In July, almost 2 years ago, we lost two police officers. We said we were going to do everything we could to make sure it would never happen again, albeit it could never be 100-percent certain. One of the things we certainly were going to make sure of was that there were two officers at every one of these posts, because if one deranged person shows up--especially if 20 or 30 people are coming through the door. Senator Grassley is my neighbor over at the Hart Building. This happens at the Hart Building sometimes in the middle of the day. This is just simply unacceptable. I am telling you that there is an unbelievable amount of bitterness right now in the police force over what is happening with this vote. They have been making the requests. They have been begging. They have been pleading. I think very soon we will start to at least get to the point where we have two police officers at these posts because people are coming in and then one deranged person might show up sometime. That is all you need. Then, God knows what will happen. In order to get there, there are one or two things that have to happen: More money has to go into overtime; the slack could be taken up that way; or more officers have to be hired. Now we have a headline that they are going to cut 400. This could be one of these sorts of inside games where the House says to the Senate: Look, we need to do this to show--whatever. I don't know what they are trying to show, frankly. Then you will put it back in. You save us on the Senate side. I will tell you something. Maybe it is my background in community organizing, but my hope is that they get to decide for themselves. This is a union. My hope is that the Capitol Hill Police Union will hold a press conference. I hope they are there in numbers. I hope they make it crystal clear to people who voted for these cuts that they are not going to let you play around with their lives: We are not going to let you profess such concern for us and our families and then put us in a position where we not only cannot protect the public but we cannot really protect ourselves, which is absolutely outrageous. I do no damage to the truth when I say this on the floor of the Senate. As a matter of fact, I initially made the mistake, I say to the Senator from California, of listing some of the door posts. I was then told by the police to not do that because they worry that you then create a security risk. So I don't do that anymore. But I can tell you that I observe it all the time. This House vote is just so damaging to people's morale. It is not right. It is going to create a dangerous situation. It is already not a good situation. But we are going to see a lot of people leave this police force. We are. They are going to join D.C. police, or go wherever; they are going to leave. Hopefully, in the Senate we can be there and inject some sanity into this appropriations process. But I will tell you one thing. I think this union and these police officers should take on this vote. They have been patient. They have been patient. I think this is just absolutely unconscionable. Two years ago, we went through hell. There was such emotion. We made this commitment. What a short memory. What a short memory.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I yield for a moment to my colleague from Florida.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. One of the provisions in this amendment says if there has not been adequate progress on the part of title I children--there is a 4-year period that you look at, and then we do this assessment, and if there has not been adequate progress, then 30 percent of the funds which are title VI funds, as I understand it, are withheld from these school districts. I just want to say to my colleagues that I think this is a mistake. I think we should have the assessment. I think we should know. But, as I see it, when you hold back the funds--and I think we can talk about how we may need to have different teachers; we may need to have different principals, but when we actually cut the funds in a variety of these different programs, I think the children are the ones who are paying the price. This is near and dear to my heart. I think this is a mistake. Here is the parallel that I would draw. I have been trying over the last month to come to the floor and say: Look, when we have these high- stakes tests for third graders and whether they go on to fourth grade, for God's sake, let's also make sure they have the resources to be able to pass these tests and that each of these children has the same opportunity to achieve. If we don't do that, I think this will be punitive. I don't understand what some of my colleagues are doing. I think it is a big mistake to basically say to these schools and these school districts, especially when I see that they are the ones--I heard this debate this morning. I heard the Senator from Indiana. I thought it was kind of interesting. He said, you know, I heard the debate. Is it the Governors' fault or is it not the Governors fault? I think in many ways we are at fault. I think it is pathetic how little of the National Government budget--I heard anywhere from one- half of 1 percent to 2 percent of our overall budget--goes to education. I still argue, look, we should be a player for prekindergarten, and we are not doing it. It is as if we forgot. It is as if we will jump on a bandwagon and get off of it quickly. A year ago all of us were talking about the development of the brain. You have to get it right by the age of 3. Some of these kids come to school way behind. They fall further behind. Let's get that right. Let's do that. We know from all of the research that has been done--whether we like it or not--that probably the two most important variables above and beyond a good teacher are the educational attainment and the income attainment of families. We are doing precious little, even with all of these surpluses and a booming economy, to change any of these circumstances that would so crucially affect how well children do. The assumption is, if you are not trying hard enough, we are going to cut off the money. I think it hurts the kids. I don't mind where Senator Bingaman and others are going on accountability. I think there are ways in which we can make it clear that there may have to be some reconstitution in terms of some of the personnel, albeit even there I am a little wary because I don't accept the assumption that the big problem is the teachers aren't trying hard enough or the principals are not trying hard enough or there isn't enough commitment. But, in any case, I don't like the sanction part. I think that is a big mistake because the kids are the ones who pay the price on this, as I understand this provision. That was one concern I wanted to raise. I want my colleagues to speak to it because that is the way this debate should take place. The only other concern I want to register, because there are plenty others who want to speak--some have said don't even raise it because we don't want to get into a big debate about it. But on paraprofessionals, I like some of the changes that have been made with the language on this. There is language that I think says the only way you can hire paraprofessionals is to replace paraprofessionals. I know what you are trying to get at, which is we don't want paraprofessionals actually doing the teaching. The teachers should be doing the teaching, and we don't want poor school districts to have the paraprofessionals who aren't certified and other school districts to have more. On the other hand, it seems to me this may be a little bit too inflexible because as long as we make sure the teachers are doing the teaching, sometimes additional teaching assistants can make a huge difference in general above and beyond title I. The second point I want to make is if we are going to talk about professional development for paraprofessionals--this happened, I say to Senator Lieberman, about 3 weeks ago. I was back home. Sheila and I went to a gathering of cafeteria workers. We flew halfway across the State to be there. Sheila was a teaching assistant 19 years ago when we were married. She dropped out of school to put me through school. All the kids thought she was a librarian; she didn't have a college degree. She was a teaching assistant. In addition, there were food service workers, teaching assistants, custodians, and the bus drivers. One of the things they said: We don't mind more professional development, and we don't mind saying go back and get an associate degree, but please remember, many of us who have these jobs don't have a lot of income. We can't just give up a job to go back to school. We can't just take a sabbatical. We ought to be very careful, as we talk about this for these paraprofessionals. If we want them to receive more training, if we want them going back to school, make sure they are able to do so; many can't right now. Those are the two questions I raise. I am prepared to yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator for 10 seconds. My understanding is that following the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from North Carolina is going to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be brief because a number of Senators are here who want to get the floor. I want to respond briefly to Senator Gregg. Then I want to raise one question for Senator Lieberman. I wanted to speak to his amendment. I thought that was one way of being respectful. Then I want some Senators who are sponsoring this amendment, sometime after they make their presentation, to speak to the concerns I will raise in a moment. First of all, however, I want to respond to the Senator from New Hampshire because all of this is a matter of record. The Senator brought out pictures of Governors and talked about when he was Governor. I think that is sort of beside the point. I don't remember anybody using such language, and I don't know that anybody implied such a thing. But I will say that when I talk about grassroots, I kid around about the Governors. People say: Let's hear from the grassroots. Let me give you an example of what I consider grassroots--the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support. This is a coalition of about 1,000 community groups, including faith-based and neighborhood organizations. I had a chance to speak at their gathering in Chicago. Most of them are of color, and many are of low- to moderate-income. They just released a study which I think speaks to one of the issues here. This is not, I say to Senator Graham and others, responding to his amendment but in response to Senator Gregg's comments. First of all, when we went through the debate on the welfare bill, I heard the discussion about this many times. Those who were for it said they didn't want the bill to be punitive. They talked about child care, food stamps, transportation, and health care. This study was just released this past weekend by this coalition. The problem, according to the study, is that many States are denying working poor families benefits to which they are legally entitled. That, of course, undermines the very incentives that Congress had in mind on behalf of the working poor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article entitled ``Fair Deal for the Poor'' by E.J. Dionne, Jr. be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I quote from the article: ``Even if you're a proponent of welfare reform, you'd be shocked at what's happening,'' says Lissa Bell, policy director of the Seattle-based Northwest Federation of Community Organizations. If the purpose of welfare reform is ``self-sufficiency,'' that idea is ``not being adequately reflected'' in actual administration of the programs, she says. What Bell and her co-author, Carson Strege-Flora, found were many cases of states and localities violating federal rules by imposing waiting periods for programs that are supposed to have none; creating cumbersome application rules to make it hard for eligible people to get benefits, and misinforming the working poor about what help was available to them. Here is my point to my colleague, Senator Gregg, and to others. The point is this: There are many fine Governors, but there is a reason why over 30 years ago we said there are certain core standards. We used the word ``accountability''--a certain core accountability when it comes to the poorest children in the country. And we are not about to support legislation that does away with a commitment to migrant children, a commitment to homeless children, a commitment on the part of the Federal Government that says to every State and school district there will be programs that will respond to the special and harsh circumstances of these children's lives. We are not going to leave this up to the States because even if there is some abuse and that is all there is, it is too much. That is the point, I say to Senator Gregg. Second, very briefly on the amendment that is before us, I thank my colleagues for their good work. I wanted to express the main concern I have. This is the one provision of this legislation which troubles me. Could I ask my colleagues to shut that door at the top, please.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since the Senator was responding to my concerns, I have a couple of comments. First, I absolutely meant to thank the Senator for his effort. I don't want this to be a deal where I love you on the floor and then vote against your amendment. I want to make it clear I am thinking it through before the final vote. I appreciate what the Senator said, but I still think it doesn't speak to the concern I am trying to register. For example, if you don't get it right in terms of these kids, then you are going to be cut. The problem is, there are other kids in the schools who may not be title I kids but they also need the help. The reason for that is title I is funded at the 30-percent level. In Minnesota, in St. Paul, when you get to a school that has fewer than 65 percent low-income kids, they don't get any of the money. All other schools get some of the money. There are a lot of other kids affected by cuts in the programs. I am all for putting ``teeth'' into this. Again, I think the Bingaman amendment goes in the direction of accountability, and he talks about reconstitution. There are some definite proposals that do have teeth that say, look, we have to be accountable. I think ultimately it is a mistake to have your sanctions and trigger the cuts in what little assistance we give. We will end up cutting some of the scant resources we do give to schools which help kids. I do not believe we should do that. I am going to make that point again, especially since I do not think we have in the Congress done anywhere close to what we should do to live up to our national vow of equal opportunity for every child. I believe this is a mistake. We are hurting the wrong people on this. On professional development, again I appreciate the sensitivity of my colleague's response, but I actually was saying one other point, which was I still think we can make it crystal clear. The Senator has the teachers doing the teaching when they should be doing the teaching, but I do not understand why we have such an inflexible requirement that the only additional paraprofessionals hired would be hired to replace paraprofessionals. Some school districts say they need additional assistants who can help them do more one-on-one work. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, and Senator Snowe as a cosponsor of the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000. As this bill demonstrates, concern about the high price of prescription drugs in this country is a bipartisan issue. Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike suffer from the unconscionable behavior of American drug companies who overcharge American consumers day in and day out, compared to prices they charge in every other country of the world. Americans regardless of party have a fundamental belief in fairness--and know a rip-off when they see one. This bill aims to end the rip-off, to end the choke hold that the pharmaceutical industry has on America's seniors. The Jeffords-Wellstone Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act will make prescription drugs affordable for millions of Americans by applying the principles of free trade and competition to the prescription drug industry--without sacrificing safety. Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins and I have heard the first-hand stories from our constituents--in Minnesota, in Maine and in Vermont--constituents who are justifiably frustrated and discouraged when they can't afford to buy prescription drugs that are made in the United States--unless they go across the border to Canada where those same drugs, manufactured in the same facilities here in the U.S. are available for about half the price. This legislation provides relief from the price gouging of American consumers by our own pharmaceutical industry. This price gouging affects all Americans, but especially our senior citizens who feel the brunt of this problem more than any other age group because of the increasing number of prescription drugs we all will take as the years pass. Senior citizens have lost their patience in waiting for answers-- -and so have I. That is why I have joined Senator Jeffords in this bipartisan effort to allow all Americans to have access to prescription drugs at prices they can afford. While we can be proud of both American scientific research that produces new miracle cures and the high standards of safety and efficacy that we expect to be followed at the FDA, it is shameful that America's most vulnerable citizens--the chronically ill and the elderly--are being asked to pay the highest prices in the world here in the U.S. for the exact same medications manufactured here but sold more cheaply overseas. Pharmacists could sell prescription drugs for less here in the United States, if they could buy and import these same drugs from Canada or Europe. Now, however, Federal law allows only the manufacturer of a drug to import it into the U.S. Thus American pharmacists and wholesalers must pay the exorbitant prices charged by the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. market and pass along those high prices to consumers. The legislative solution is simple. The bipartisan Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act does two things: first, it allows Americans to legally import prescription drugs for personal use (which currently is allowed by FDA discretion), and more importantly, in the long run, it allows American pharmacists and wholesalers to import FDA approved prescription drugs into the United States for resale. Only drugs which have already been approved by the FDA for use in the United States could be imported for resale. Thus, the existing strict safety standards of the FDA will be maintained. Pharmacists and wholesalers will be able to purchase drugs at lower prices and then pass the savings along to American consumers. To assure safety, the bill requires the FDA to develop regulations to precisely track imported drugs and to issue any other safety requirements the FDA deems necessary. It is time to tell the pharmaceutical industry: Enough! It is an industry that controls competition to keep prices so high that prescription drugs become unaffordable for the average American. It is an industry that puts profits first and leaves patients to fend for themselves. What this bill does is to address the absurd situation by which American consumers are paying substantially higher prices for their prescription drugs than are the citizens of Canada, Mexico, and other countries. This bill does not create any new federal programs. Instead it uses principles of free trade and competition to help make it possible for American consumers to purchase the prescription drugs they need. In summary, this bill brings competition into the price of pharmaceuticals and extends the promise of America's medical and pharmaceutical research to every American. It deserves bipartisan support, and I am glad to say it has it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, and Senator Snowe as a cosponsor of the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000. As this bill demonstrates, concern about the high price of prescription drugs in this country is a bipartisan issue. Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike suffer from the unconscionable behavior of American drug companies who overcharge American consumers day in and day out, compared to prices they charge in every other country of the world. Americans regardless of party have a fundamental belief in fairness--and know a rip-off when they see one. This bill aims to end the rip-off, to end the choke hold that the pharmaceutical industry has on America's seniors. The Jeffords-Wellstone Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act will make prescription drugs affordable for millions of Americans by applying the principles of free trade and competition to the prescription drug industry--without sacrificing safety. Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins and I have heard the first-hand stories from our constituents--in Minnesota, in Maine and in Vermont--constituents who are justifiably frustrated and discouraged when they can't afford to buy prescription drugs that are made in the United States--unless they go across the border to Canada where those same drugs, manufactured in the same facilities here in the U.S. are available for about half the price. This legislation provides relief from the price gouging of American consumers by our own pharmaceutical industry. This price gouging affects all Americans, but especially our senior citizens who feel the brunt of this problem more than any other age group because of the increasing number of prescription drugs we all will take as the years pass. Senior citizens have lost their patience in waiting for answers-- -and so have I. That is why I have joined Senator Jeffords in this bipartisan effort to allow all Americans to have access to prescription drugs at prices they can afford. While we can be proud of both American scientific research that produces new miracle cures and the high standards of safety and efficacy that we expect to be followed at the FDA, it is shameful that America's most vulnerable citizens--the chronically ill and the elderly--are being asked to pay the highest prices in the world here in the U.S. for the exact same medications manufactured here but sold more cheaply overseas. Pharmacists could sell prescription drugs for less here in the United States, if they could buy and import these same drugs from Canada or Europe. Now, however, Federal law allows only the manufacturer of a drug to import it into the U.S. Thus American pharmacists and wholesalers must pay the exorbitant prices charged by the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. market and pass along those high prices to consumers. The legislative solution is simple. The bipartisan Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act does two things: first, it allows Americans to legally import prescription drugs for personal use (which currently is allowed by FDA discretion), and more importantly, in the long run, it allows American pharmacists and wholesalers to import FDA approved prescription drugs into the United States for resale. Only drugs which have already been approved by the FDA for use in the United States could be imported for resale. Thus, the existing strict safety standards of the FDA will be maintained. Pharmacists and wholesalers will be able to purchase drugs at lower prices and then pass the savings along to American consumers. To assure safety, the bill requires the FDA to develop regulations to precisely track imported drugs and to issue any other safety requirements the FDA deems necessary. It is time to tell the pharmaceutical industry: Enough! It is an industry that controls competition to keep prices so high that prescription drugs become unaffordable for the average American. It is an industry that puts profits first and leaves patients to fend for themselves. What this bill does is to address the absurd situation by which American consumers are paying substantially higher prices for their prescription drugs than are the citizens of Canada, Mexico, and other countries. This bill does not create any new federal programs. Instead it uses principles of free trade and competition to help make it possible for American consumers to purchase the prescription drugs they need. In summary, this bill brings competition into the price of pharmaceuticals and extends the promise of America's medical and pharmaceutical research to every American. It deserves bipartisan support, and I am glad to say it has it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Since part of the remarks by the Senator from Utah dealt with the equity question, I just want to add to the Record a quote from John Powell, who is director of the Institute on Race and Poverty in Minnesota: When low-income children are segregated into schools that are predominantly poor, the students confront not only their own individual poverty, but the effects of concentrated poverty on the school system itself. This combination often results in more drop-outs and teenage pregnancies, lack of parental involvement, inability to pay for books, lack of role models, and inability to afford college. It goes on to say: Teachers and staff in racially segregated and high poverty schools are too often overwhelmed by student needs. Let me take my remarks in a couple of different directions. I want to first talk about a meeting I had with the National Alliance of Black School Educators who were here last week. I had a chance to drop by and not talk at them but talk with them. Since the Senator from Utah was talking about the whole question of equity, or lack of equity, let me, right away, say to colleagues that I really hope we go forward with this debate. Sometime later on in the debate, I am going to come out on the floor and talk about it and have some amendments speaking to this question. It is the question of the reliance on high-stakes testing--the single measurement of standardized tests to determine whether or not children go from third grade to fourth grade, from eighth grade to ninth grade, whether they graduate, what grouping they are in. I just want to point something out since Senator Hatch talked about this. We ought to make sure we meet the opportunity-to-learn standard if we are going to be implementing these tests. In other words, we had better make sure we do not hold children responsible for our failure to adequately invest in their achievement and in their future. If we just focus on tests and then flunk students who do not pass the tests, and we do not do what we should do both at the Federal level and, I say to my colleague from Arkansas, the State and school district level combined, to get the resources so that each one of these children has the same chance to pass these tests, and to succeed, then, frankly, I think reliance on these tests alone is punitive. So you need to do it both ways. Yes, you need to have standards, but you also need to make sure every child has the same opportunity to meet those standards. I will say one other thing about the tests. I will have an amendment that says these tests ought to meet professional standards. We want to make sure they are implemented in the right way. I will have an amendment that says we need to take into account especially learning disabilities, which I think is the law of the land. I think we ought to make that clear in this bill. We ought to speak to those students who have a limited proficiency in English as well. More than anything, I want to talk a little bit about this opportunity-to-learn standard that I do not think we are meeting. I think it is so key to the whole discussion. I think it is key to what John Powell has said. I think it is key to what other Senators have said as well. I think it is key, actually, to at least part of what the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, was saying as well. We are out here debating this bill, and we should. In a moment I am about to, one more time, say where I think the Republican bill is deeply flawed and why I am so disappointed in it. But for a moment I would like to just talk about the budget implications. I do not know whether we are spending 1 percent of the Federal budget--someone can help me--or thereabouts on education altogether. Does that sound right? Is it 1 percent of the overall Federal budget on education? It is 2 percent. I argue that key to our national security is whether or not we are going to adequately invest in the skills and character of the children. I argue that key to our national security is not so many more bombs and missiles and more money spent on the Pentagon; the key to our national security is the security of local communities. I think that is what matters first and foremost. The key to security for local communities is good housing, reducing violence, and having decent health care. But I think most importantly, the key to our national security is the security of local communities. And the security of local communities means we have a commitment to education second to no other nation in the world so that every child-- every single child--is full of hope, and every child has dreams, and every child can do well. I tell you, I think 2 percent of the Federal budget spent on education is pathetic. I know the Senator from Vermont agrees because he has been one of the Senators who has been most vocal in saying we ought to get our priorities straight and we ought to be allocating more resources. We are going to debate how we allocate those resources to States and local school districts. That is the debate on this bill. I will speak just for a few minutes. I said to my colleague from Arkansas I would not take more than 20 minutes altogether, and I will not. But I think the larger question is, Why in the world are we not allocating more of our Federal budget to education? Why aren't we getting more of the resources back to the school districts, whether it be for the IDEA program, kids with special needs--boy, that would help our school districts--whether it be moving beyond just 30 percent funding for title I; whether it be a real investment in affordable child care, prekindergarten, so kids come to school ready to learn; whether it be some money we can leverage. Senator Harkin has that amendment that will enable school districts to have more funding to put into rebuilding crumbling schools, you name it. I am just amazed that with a booming economy and the country doing so well economically, we in the Congress, in the Senate, cannot invest more than 2 percent of our overall budget in our children's education. They are 100 percent of our future. I do not know how in the world any Senator believes, on a tin cup budget, we are going to be able to make the kind of investment we should be making. That is my first point. My second point is--Senator Kennedy spoke about this. My guess is we will get a different point of view from some other Senators in just a moment--I think the fundamental flaw of S. 2 is the abandonment of a commitment we made over 30 years ago as a nation that we would have some basic national standards, some basic protection, to make sure the poorest children in this country, the most vulnerable children in this country, would be well served or at least would be served. We do not serve them well, but at least to make sure that for the homeless children and the migrant children there would be programs that would speak to the needs and circumstances of their lives, that we would target title I money to the neediest and poorest and most vulnerable children. Do you know what. I sometimes think Senators are taking this too personally because it is not necessarily an attack on my State or an attack on the State of Arkansas or an attack on the State of Vermont; it is just a matter of philosophy. Over three decades ago, we made a commitment that the Federal Government, representing the national community, with certain core values, would make sure we provide some programs that really speak to the most vulnerable children, that we are not going to abandon those children. I said it last week; I will say it one more time. My colleagues keep talking about change, change, change. I do not think it is a great step forward. I think it is a great leap backward. That is why many of us oppose it. That is why I think the President opposes it. That is why I think we have started out on the wrong foot. Going further than that--and this will be the last part of what I want to say; I will just divide it in two quick parts--one, I say to Senator Lott and others, I look forward to having a chance to bring amendments out here. I want to have some amendments that speak to the discriminatory effect of the standardized testing. I want to have some amendments that provide support for children who witness violence at home and, therefore, cannot do well in school. I want to have an amendment that provides for more counselors in our schools. In some ways, I cannot think of a more important amendment. Right now, we have a ratio of 1 counselor for every 1,000 students, or thereabouts, in the country. I want to have an amendment that speaks directly to the challenges of urban education. Some of my colleagues have put back language that deals with the special challenges of rural education, which I also think is a real challenge, but I also want to put a focus on urban education as well. As someone who was a teacher at the college level--but, boy, I will tell you, I came to respect teaching at the high school and middle school level; I think sometimes even more at the elementary level, and the pre-K level even more so, as well--I am interested in anything and everything that leads to better teacher quality, with the proviso that we understand there are many really fine teachers right now in the country. I said this last week, but I will say it again, too. I don't mind holding everybody accountable if we do it in the right way. But I also think that some of the people who bash public school teachers couldn't last an hour in the classrooms which they condemn. I think we have to be very careful in how we do it. The other thing I want to mention beyond my amendment is to say one more time to other Senators that I think there are some amendments we have introduced and we will be introducing that certainly speak to many of the meetings I have had with people in Minnesota. I have been ready for this bill to come to the floor for almost 2 years. I think all together in our State of Minnesota--between myself and staff--we had meetings with close to 100 different school districts. It is incredible. We have been all over the State. People were genuinely excited about this bill. They know that most of the money for K through 12 is at the State level. They know that. But people have been very interested in how we can provide more incentives for more teachers. They are very interested in the whole question of what we can do about the needs of physical infrastructure. They are very interested in trying to get more counselors in our schools. They are very interested in the sense of getting more young people interested in education. They are very interested in what we did do in prekindergarten. They think that would make a huge difference. They are very interested in afterschool programs. They are very interested in reducing class size. Frankly, the Republican bill on the floor speaks to very little of that--not directly. It assumes with sort of a blank check that it will all happen. I say to my colleagues in the majority that you have not invested nearly enough money in your budget, nor will it be in the appropriations bill. We have too many speeches given about the importance of children, but we are not matching the rhetoric with the resources. The second thing I say to my colleagues is in terms of how you allocate the money. I think it is not a big step forward. I think it is a great leap backward from the kind of commitment we have made to all of the children in the country, including the most vulnerable children and the poorest children in this country. Third, and finally, there should be some decisive priorities in this bill. I have tried to outline some of those priorities. I don't see it. We will move forward this week, next week, and I hope the next week as well. Maybe in 2 more weeks we will have amendments, votes, and see where we wind up. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Utah leaves the floor, I thank him for his discussion of his amendment. I was listening carefully to his discussion, and his focus on providing States incentives for moving toward equity and his focus on what Jonathan Kozol calls savage inequalities and the tremendous disparity of resources, depending on the wealth of the community in which a child lives, is right on the mark. I thank the Senator from Utah for his words.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Kennedy wants to ask the Senator from Utah a question, and then I will regain the floor after that.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I might have 4 minutes to speak about Mike Epstein, who passed away on Saturday.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first I want colleagues to know, and of course this is for Democrats and Republicans, and with Mike it is for staff and support staff and just about everybody who works here, pages and others, there will be a service for Mike in the Mansfield Room. It will be at 3 tomorrow. That is room S-207. Many Senators came to the floor and spoke about Mike last week, on Thursday. It was wonderful. I thank you. About 70 people came to our office and did videos. All of this was sent to his family. Mike heard it. It was read to Mike. It meant a great deal to him. Letters have come in. It has really been wonderful to recognize such a great, great person. Mike passed away on Saturday. We had a very small service for him today. He was buried in the Congressional Cemetery. Rabbi David Saperstein was there, Mike's family was there, and a few friends of many years were there. Then tomorrow we will have a service here. I look forward to that because it is wonderful, I say as a friend of Mike, the unbelievable impact he made. I could go on forever. I will not because if I try to, the truth is I probably will not be able to go on at all. I just would not be able to do it here on the floor. I will say one unimportant thing because it is about me, and then I will say one important thing, and then I will be finished. The unimportant thing is in some ways I will just be lost without him. It is not like Mike was my assistant; it was like he was my teacher. But I will talk to him every day. The second thing I want to say, which is much more important, is if I had to summarize a life, I would say the reason there has been such an outpouring of love is because Mike loved his family; he loved his work. And do you know what else? This is the best thing of all. He really loved and believed in public service. He loved his country. He was just steady. It was just who he was. He never changed. The world is going to miss him. The Senate is going to miss him. Most important of all, his family is going to miss him. Sheila and I are going to miss him. Evan Bayh, who went through a real tragedy in his own family and lost his mother at an early age, was kind enough, last week, to say to me: Paul, it's not how long you live your life; it's how you live your life. I think Mike is one of the five greatest individuals I have ever met in my life. He lived a wonderful life. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request regarding debate on this amendment. I think we will probably go back and forth, but on the Democratic side, after Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray speak, I ask unanimous consent I follow them in sequence as we alternate back and forth.