Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I thank him for mentioning Jonathan Kozol because I love him. I believe in him. The last book he wrote--although he has another book that is now coming out--that was published--and my colleague may very well have read it--is called ``Amazing Grace: Poor Children and the Conscience of America.'' If you read that book, the sum total of that book is that any country that loved and cared about children would never let children grow up under these conditions and never abandon these children in all the ways we have. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, there is precious little, if anything--precious little; I do not want to overstate the case--in S. 2 that speaks to that question. When you get to where the rubber meets the road, and the budget proposal we have and, therefore, the appropriations bills we will have, are we going to see any of the kind of investment that deals with any of these conditions which are so important in assuring that all the children in this country have a chance to succeed? The answer is no. The answer is no, no, no. I will finish up because I see my colleague from New Mexico is on the floor. I know others want to speak. Two final, very quick points. One, I want to speak to Senator Hutchinson's example. Again, he is not here. He is very good at making his arguments. I know he will have a counterpoint, so I am not going to present this as: You are wrong; you were inaccurate. But Senator Hutchinson came out with graphics about gym facilities, workout equipment. It looked like a Cybex system. He was basically saying: Here you have, in a school that has a decaying infrastructure, this beautiful workout facility; this is an outrage because basically this is what we have right now with this Federal bureaucracy which dictates, hey, this is where you can get the money. I say that I know of no Federal grant program that requires any school to purchase exercise equipment. I do not know whether this was a part of an afterschool program or part of another program in which perhaps the school officials decided this is what they needed for the community. But that is a very different point. But I want to make it clear--and Senator Hutchinson may be able to add to the Record and make it perfectly clear that what I have said is not perfectly clear--I do not have any knowledge --I wanted to ask him about this--of any Federal grant program that would require a school to purchase this equipment. I think that is important. Finally, I have heard my colleagues talk about bureaucracy and all of the rest. I find it interesting that when I look at the opposition, and I see the National Association of Elementary School Principals or the National Association of Secondary School Principals, much less the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Council of the Great City Schools--these people do not work at the Federal level; these people are down there in the trenches--the National Association of Secondary School Principals or the National Association of Elementary School Principals--we are talking about men and women who have a great deal of knowledge about what is working and what isn't working. I think that we might want to take heed of their opposition to this bill because we are not talking about bureaucrats; we are talking about teachers, about principals. I don't know where the PTA is. I think they are also in opposition. So for the record, I will concede--and Senator Domenici is great in debate, and he will jump up and debate me--that the National PTA--and he says I am right--doesn't represent all the parents, and I concede that the teachers unions don't represent all the teachers, and I concede the Association of Secondary School Principals, or Elementary School Principals, don't represent all the principals at either level; but you have to admit that these people, these organizations, do represent a considerable number of principals. They do represent a lot of teachers. They do represent a lot of people who work there at the school level. I find it interesting that they oppose this bill. They don't see this bill as a great step forward for education or for the children they represent. So for my colleague from New Mexico, after 30 seconds I will yield the floor. In that 30 seconds, I say to the majority leader, let's have at it. Let's have the amendments out here and let's have a good debate. Let's not fold after 2 or 3 days. This is a major bill. I remember, when I first came here, we had major bills out on the floor and we took 2 weeks, and we might have 60, 70, or 80 amendments. We worked from the morning until the evening. Let's do it. I have a number of amendments that I think would make a difference for the children in my State and in other States. Other Senators have amendments. But, for gosh sakes, let's allow the Senate to be at its best and not insist that we have only a few amendments and that will be it, and then we basically shut this down. The people in the country want us to have the debate. I think it is important to do so. People also want to see some good legislation. This bill, in its present form, is not good legislation, in my view. I think it is fundamentally flawed. I don't think it represents anywhere close to the best of what we can do as a Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we are going to have a hearing before the health committee. I think we both thank Senator Jeffords and we are ready to move it forward. It is great to have a chance to work with the Senator on this. I wish he wasn't wrong on every other issue.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Vermont whether or not after the Senator from New Mexico speaks he could be followed by the Senator from Tennessee, and I follow the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Tennessee proceed and I follow the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Tennessee speak, I follow the Senator from Tennessee, and then the Senator from Rhode Island speak unless there is a Republican, and then we go back and forth, and then the Senator from Rhode Island will speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and say to my colleague from Vermont I will try to stay under 3 hours. Madam President, I, too, think we can do better by our children. It pains me a little bit to say what I am about to say--not for 3 hours-- because I respect the chairman of our committee, Senator Jeffords of Vermont.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, as much as I respect my colleague from Vermont holding up the standard that we can do better for our children, holding up the standard that we need somehow to renew our national vow of equal opportunity for every child, I do not believe this piece of legislation represents the change I have been hearing about. I do not believe S. 2 represents a great step forward for children in our country, especially vulnerable children. I think this piece of legislation, S. 2, represents not a great leap forward but a great leap backwards. I come to the floor as a Senator from Minnesota to speak against this legislation in its present form because I was a teacher for 20 years, a college teacher, before becoming a U.S. Senator. Education is my passion. I speak against S. 2 because I have been in a school every 2 weeks since I was elected almost 10 years ago. I love teaching. I love being in schools. Today I was at a rally at the State capitol in Minnesota with some great students from all around Minnesota who are seeing cuts in their school districts, teachers being eliminated, extra curricular activities eliminated, larger class sizes, and course offerings being eliminated. I come to the floor to speak against this legislation because I believe the goodness of our country is to make sure that every child has the same opportunity to reach her or his full potential, and education is the foundation of this opportunity. This piece of legislation does not represent a step forward. It is turning the clock back 30, 40 years. That is unacceptable to me as a Senator. This bill is fundamentally flawed because of the programs that it block grants. There is a reason why we made a commitment to migrant education. There is a reason why we made a commitment to homeless children. There is a reason why we made a specific commitment with accountability standards to make sure that title I works for children who are disadvantaged and they can do better in school. There is a reason why these are categorical programs. There is a reason why we have set some standards. The reason is, the House of Representatives and the Senate decided that we are a national community as well as States. And as a national community, we make a commitment in the House and the Senate that no child, no matter how poor or how vulnerable, no matter the son or daughter of migrant farm workers or a child who is homeless or a child who is living in an inner-city or rural neighborhood that is poor, it makes no difference; those children will also receive assistance. There will be standards. That is a national decision because we are a national community. This piece of legislation throws that out. Some of my colleagues come to the floor and say: We are for change. What kind of change? Pretitle I, to give but one example, we had the example of school districts using this money to purchase football uniforms, band uniforms, swimming pools, and all of the rest. That is why we decided we were not going to block grant this money. That is why we decided we were going to make sure the title I money went for the children who needed the help. I had hoped we would not have this crude block grant program that turns the clock back 30 years plus. I thought we would start out with a bipartisan bill. That is not the direction we have gone. This turns the clock back. This basically says, if you are a child of a mother who is homeless and your mother doesn't have much clout, if you are the child of migrant farm workers and they don't have much political power, or you are the child of parents who are poor and they don't have much clout, it doesn't matter what the State you are living in decides to do. The Governors are free to spend the money however they want. That is what this legislation says in its present form. That is not a step forward. That is a step backward. That is a step backward from the national commitment we have made as the House of Representatives and Senate, that all the children in this country, including vulnerable children, will have a chance to do well. I have heard my colleagues say: I hope we get into some real debate; I will be pleased to yield for a question any time. Well, we need to do this because we have had 30 or 40 years of these programs, going back to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Look at the statistics. We haven't seen any change. There are too many children of color and too many poor children and too many children with limited English proficiency who are not doing well. Now we bring a bill to the floor that is going to make things much better. Give me a break. When I am in communities talking to students and parents, talking to people in schools, nobody ever comes up to me and says: Can we have more Ed-Flex? They don't even know what it is. Hardly any States have even applied for it. They don't talk to me about Ed- Flex, Flex-Flex, flexibility. They say: Why doesn't the Federal Government make a commitment to pre-K, since most of K through 12 is us? Why don't you adequately fund good developmental child care so when children come to kindergarten they are ready to learn, and we don't have this huge learning gap where some children are way behind, then fall further behind, then drop out, then wind up in prison? Why don't you get real and invest in developmental child care? Not with this budget from this majority. And, by the way, not with the budget proposal from this President. We haven't made this commitment. We say we have S. 2 out here because this is for change, to make things better for these children. If we want to make things better for the children, why don't we fully fund the IDEA program so that our school districts don't have to fill in the void? Let's fully fund it. Let's get real about the actual investment of dollars. Why do we not fully fund the title I program? We are funding title I at about a 30- percent level. When I am in St. Paul or Minneapolis, to use two cities in my State-- and I could talk about other communities--I don't have parents and teachers and others rushing up to me saying: We need more Ed-Flex. They say to me: After you get to the schools that don't have at least 65 percent of the students poor, those schools get no funding at all because we have run out of title I funding for children who come from backgrounds of difficult circumstances, come to school ill-prepared, are behind, need additional help. We fund this program at the 30-percent level, to the point where at the schools in our cities in my State, if they don't have at least a 65-percent low-income student population, they don't receive any funding. When I talk to people in Minnesota, they ask me: Can we get the best teachers? What does this legislation do about getting the best teachers into teaching? Can we figure out creative ways of having more parental involvement? Can we have smaller class size? Can we focus on good professional development for teachers? Maybe the money could be used for the Eisenhower programs for math and science, but we eliminate the program. The Eisenhower Program has been a huge success. In fact, I would like to do more of it. I would like to have money designated for professional development. The original National Defense Education Act had those summer institutes for teachers, and they were great. Teachers loved getting together. They loved comparing notes. They revitalized one another with new approaches to teaching, new pedagogy, new substantive matter. It was great. I hear about that. In Minnesota, I also hear about--and I know it is true in every State--decaying infrastructure, crumbling schools. The argument is, can we figure out a way of having more dollars to rebuild our schools? S. 2 doesn't speak to any of these issues. I wish to make a couple of other points. One of them is that I have heard colleagues talk about flexibility, and this is, I will admit, more a State issue. I don't know quite how we leverage it at the Federal level. But Jonathan Kozol has done a wonderful work called ``Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation''--and he has written another book and he sent me some data from New York--which says the difference between what New York City spends per pupil is about $8,000 per year per pupil and the suburbs range from $16,000 to $23,000 to $24,000 a year--two and three times as much. Jonathan Kozol's earlier book was called ``Savage Inequalities.'' So we do not, in this piece of legislation, make sure we live up to our commitment that there should be equal opportunity for every child and that we should do all we can to make sure poor children and vulnerable children have those opportunities. We do precious little to deal with the savage inequalities about which Kozol talks. We have been shameful in our lack of investment, and I know the Senator from Vermont is all for this; he has been an outspoken proponent for this. But in our shameful lack of investment in early childhood development, we don't fully fund the IDEA program, Children With Disabilities, and we don't come close to fully funding the title I program. In addition, this piece of legislation shows no strong, unequivocal, positive commitment to how we get the great teachers into our schools, how we reduce the class size, how we invest in crumbling schools, how we make sure parents are involved, how we deal with the digital divide, how we make sure schools have adequate resources, how we make sure children do well before they go to school and when they go home. It is just not here. So this piece of legislation is lacking in two fundamental respects: A, it is not a great step forward; it is a great leap backward. It turns the clock back from a commitment to vulnerable, poor children in America. I will oppose it with all my might for that reason, with its block grant. B, it doesn't, in the affirmative, authorize or talk about the kind of investment or funding in the decisive areas that would be so important to change so that we could do even better as a nation. Madam President, I wanted to mention a couple of amendments that I have, and then I want to make a plea to the majority leader--not to the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I will have an amendment that expresses the sense of the Congress that States and districts that use standardized tests to make high- stakes decisions about students should be professional standards on educational testing. It should not really be controversial, I hope. But I think we have to make sure these tests are used well. I am going to call for a study on the impact of high-stakes testing policies on students, teachers, and curriculum because I am very worried that when we start using single standardized tests to determine whether a third grader goes to fourth grade, what kind of reading group you are in, whether you graduate, and all the rest, and we have done little to make sure every child has the same opportunity to actually pass the test, what we have done is put the responsibility on kids and students for our failure to invest in their future and their achievement. So I think we at least ought to do a study. We ought to have an understanding. I will have an amendment making it clear that if States and school districts use standardized tests to make the high-stakes decisions--I am all for testing for diagnostic purposes--to determine whether a student graduates or goes from one grade to another, at the very minimum, appropriate accommodations must be made for language proficiency and students with disabilities. There will be an amendment I am going to sort of dedicate to my friend Paul Simon, who is no longer in the Senate. We did this together. It authorizes grants to urban school districts so they can implement any of the following programs in innovative ways to help eliminate the learning gap, as it affects children of color and the poor, and that could be the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Professional Development Act, the Immigrant Education program, or the Class Size Reduction Program. The Presiding Officer has done a good job of making sure we keep the rural piece in, and I am in full accord with that. I want to make sure we also keep in the urban piece. I will have an amendment about which I was talking to my friend, Senator Coverdell from Georgia, which I think is extremely important, to provide some support for children who witness violence at home. Every 13 seconds a woman is battered in her home. These children don't see the violence in the movies or on television; they see it in their living rooms. It has a devastating effect on their performance at school, and quite often in our schools we don't even know what is happening with these kids. I want to get some support services for them so they can do better. I have an amendment to recruit and train highly qualified teachers for high-poverty urban and rural schools. This would provide $500 million to fund a collaborative between State education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education. This is how we can recruit people, whether they are right out of college or whether they are people who make a lateral change at age 40 or 50 and want to teach in schools. We want to get the training to them and have the mentoring. We want to have the internships, and we want to get this kind of talent into our schools, especially those schools with a large low-income student population. I will have an amendment that calls for local family information centers. This would expand the Parent Information and Research Center Program in title I to include nonprofit organizations. Sometimes the way we can reach some of the hard-to-reach parents is to get them involved through some of the nonprofits in the community. I think there can be good, bipartisan support for this. I will have an amendment that provides seed money for schools to hire more counselors for mental health services. In my State of Minnesota, the ratio is 1 counselor for every 1,000 students. Indeed, many of those counselors are trained more to what college or university you go to, or, if you don't go on to college, what kinds of jobs will be available. What about the kids who have mental health needs? How are we going to be able to recognize these kids who are struggling and get help to them? How are we going to tell them? That is a hugely important issue. I am going to have an amendment that provides seed money for counselors. I am not sure how many. I am going to figure out exactly the amendment that I think has the best chance of passing so we can make a good start in this area. Finally, I am going to have an amendment I offered before. I will not spend much time on it. We had a vote on it. I want it to be on the record that I want some historian to include me in a small footnote that we have not done the policy evaluation of ``welfare reform.'' We really do not know where these mothers are. We don't know what kind of jobs they have. We don't know whether the family has had medical assistance. We don't know why there is a dramatic decline in food stamp participation. We don't know what the child care situation is with their kids. We need to know, especially since in the next 2 years all of these families are going to be off assistance and we are going to be pushing a lot of vulnerable people off the cliff. I want some policy evaluation. Nobody can tell me this has nothing to do with education because when children are hungry, they don't do well in school. When children come to school with an abscessed tooth because they have no health care or dental care, they don't do well in school. When the child care situation is miserable--it ranges from downright dangerous to not even adequate--those children come to kindergarten way behind. I have an amendment that calls for this policy evaluation. I say to the Senator from Vermont that I am not going to go on for 2 hours. But this is an important bill for me. I will probably take 5 or 10 minutes. I will save him having to get up all the time. I will be finished. But I don't want too much pressure on me to be finished because then I will just get started again. I want to conclude with this appeal to my colleagues on the other side. I have stated the reasons for my opposition. Senator Gregg of New Hampshire will be out here. He will be a powerful advocate for a different position. I hope we will have at it. We can do it with civility. We can be formal. Presumably we have respect for one another. But let's have at it. Let's come out here and let the Senate operate as the Senate operates at its best. Let's start bringing amendments out here. Let's have up-or-down votes on amendments. If we need to start early in the morning, let's start early in the morning. If we need to go not until midnight out into the evening, great. Let's work. This is a major bill. I think we all agree that there is no more important issue. Frankly, the Federal role is critical. This piece of legislation is critical. Let's have at it. It is not atypical when you have a bill of this importance. I was talking to my colleague from Georgia about this. You have a bill out on the floor for a couple of weeks. That would be good. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were 90 or 100 amendments. I remember during my earlier years, it happened all the time. Amendments fall off, or people bring amendments out, and people agree to time limits. Let's go at it. Let's have the debate. Let's make sure it is a substantive debate. I have a number of amendments. Other Senators have amendments. That is the way you operate as a Senator. That is how you can make a difference. That is how you can try to follow up on what people in your State have told you about some of the needs and gaps. That is how you can try to be a good Senator. Let's do it. We will take a couple of weeks with this. Then we will pass a bill, or we will defeat a bill, or it will be similar to what it is now, or it will be dramatically changed. But I think the country is ready for that. I think the country is ready for us to have substantive debate. I think it is ready for us to be out here on the floor working. It is ready for us to be talking about what we believe--I think the Senator from Rhode Island will agree--would be best for education in our States and how we can contribute. It wants that discussion. That is why we are here. I hope we will do that. I hope the majority leader will not come out here in 2 days, which has been the typical fashion--I am not talking behind his back; I have said this over and over again--and say: I don't like these amendments that deal with how you get guns out of schools; I don't like this amendment and, I don't like that amendment; these amendments aren't relevant; only if you agree to the following four or five or six amendments, or whatever, do we go forward. And we say: Absolutely not. We are here as Senators. We have amendments. We are ready to work for people in our State. Then cloture is filed. If there is not cloture, the bill is pulled. I don't think it is a very good bill. So in one sense, I wouldn't be unhappy with that result. But as a Senator, I would be unhappy with the result. I want to go forward. I want to have the debate. I want to have at this legislation for a couple of weeks. I want us to consider the amendments out here. I say to the majority leader what I have said twice now: You suck the vitality out of the Senate when you don't let people come out here and offer their amendments and have this debate. We are at our best when we do that, I think. I am all set to go. I am in profound opposition to this legislation. I think it is a profound mistake. One person's solution is another person's horror. The Senator from New Hampshire thinks it is just the opposite. That is fine. He will state it well. Let's have opening statements. Let's get to the amendments. Let's have debate. And let's move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say to the Senator from California I really appreciate her work. I not only heard what she said but I feel what she said and I would like to be counted as a supporter. If she needs to do the filibuster, I know how to do that. I will be out here with her.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 300, introduced earlier today by myself.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that I will soon send to the desk to proclaim April 23-30, 2000, as ``Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week'', and to recognize the many groups, particularly the Shaken Baby Alliance, who support this effort to increase awareness of one of the most unspeakable forms of child abuse, one that results in the death or lifelong disability of thousands of children each year. For the past twenty years, the current President of the United States has designated one month each year as National Child Abuse Prevention Month to increase awareness of the devastating harm done to our children by abuse and neglect. This year, April, 2000, is National Child Abuse Prevention Month, and it began with the release of a national survey conducted by the group, Prevent Child Abuse America. The survey showed that more than 50% of all Americans believe child abuse and neglect is the most important public health issue facing this country. The survey also showed that a vast majority of Americans--83 percent--believe that child abuse prevention efforts can be most successful before such behavior has begun, rather than waiting until the abuse has occurred. These results point to the need to recognize child abuse and neglect as the public health problem it is, one that is linked with a host of other problems facing our country, including poverty and drug and alcohol addiction, and one that needs the comprehensive approach of our entire public health system to solve. The need for this widespread and high level concern is well- documented. The most recent government figures show that over 1 million children were victims of abuse in 1997. Each day, three of these children die as a result of this abuse. The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reported in ``A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States,'' that a more realistic estimate of annual child deaths as a result of abuse and neglect, both known and unknown to Child Protective Service agencies, is closer to 2,000, or approximately five children per day. The rate of child fatalities caused by abuse has risen by 37 percent between 1985 and 1997, with children aged 3 and younger accounting for 77 percent of these fatalities. Because of the problems of under-reporting and errors in diagnoses, the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse believes that the number of child deaths from maltreatment per year may be as high as 5,000. In most cases, the child's death is the result of head trauma, including the trauma known as Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). Shaken Baby Syndrome results from a caregiver losing control and shaking a baby, usually an infant who is less than 1 year old. This severe shaking can kill the baby, or it can cause loss of vision, brain damage, paralysis, and seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities. This totally preventable form of child abuse causes untold grief for many families whose child dies, or is left with permanent, irreparable brain damage. The care for the child's resulting disability is estimated at more than $1 million in medical costs during just the first few years of the baby's life. The most effective solution to ending Shaken Baby Syndrome is to prevent such abuse, and it is clear that the minimal costs of educational and prevention programs may help to protect our young children and stop this tragedy from occurring. In 1995, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect recommended a universal approach to the prevention of child fatalities that would reach out to all families through the implementation of several key strategies. Such efforts began by providing services such as home visitation by trained professionals or paraprofessionals, hospital-linked outreach to parents of infants and toddlers, community-based programs designed for the specific needs of neighborhoods, and effective public education campaigns. Child abuse prevention programs have been shown to raise awareness and provide critically important information about Shaken Baby Syndrome and other forms of abuse to parents, caregivers, day care workers, child protection employees, law enforcement personnel, health care professionals, and legal representatives. Many prevention programs now include not only information about the dangers of shaking babies and how to cope with crying, but also address issues of anger management, stress reduction, appropriate expectations of children, and specific information on why shaking or impact can interrupt early brain development. Education programs for judges and others in the judicial system are also beneficial for SBS criminal cases. Ultimately, the education of all will help us reach a critical goal of zero tolerance toward shaking, a goal that will help to save children's lives. The prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome is supported by groups such as the Shaken Baby Alliance, an organization which began with 3 mothers of children who had been diagnosed with Shaken Baby Syndrome, and whose mission is to educate the general public and professionals about Shaken Baby Syndrome, and to increase support for victims and victim families in the health care and criminal justice systems. In my own state of Minnesota, the Shaken Baby Alliance is represented by the outstanding efforts of Kim Kang, whose daughter Rachel was diagnosed in 1995 with Shaken Baby Syndrome, after being violently shaken by a day care provider. My heart goes out to her family, and to all of the families who deal with the results of Shaken Baby Syndrome and all other forms of child abuse and neglect. Child abuse and neglect is a scourge on our country, and we must do more to prevent the damage done to our children, our families, and our society as a result of child abuse, and to help those who suffer its consequences. Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week is supported by the Shaken Baby Alliance, Children's Defense Fund, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Welfare League of America, Prevent Child Abuse America, Brain Injury Association, National Child Abuse Coalition, National Exchange Club Foundation, and many other organizations including the National Basketball Association, which is sponsoring a series of ``NBA Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Nights 2000'' events to generate public awareness about the issue of child abuse and neglect during National Child Abuse Prevention Month 2000. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the week of April 23-30, 2000, as ``Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week'', and to take part in the many local and national activities and events recognizing the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. This resolution has the support of a number of organizations: Shaken Baby Alliance, Children's Defense Fund, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Welfare League of America, Prevent Child Abuse America, Brain Injury Association, National Child Abuse Coalition, National Exchange Club Foundation Child Abuse Prevention Program, and many other organizations, including the National Basketball Association, which is sponsoring a series of NBA Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Nights 2000 to generate public awareness of this. I will not read the whole resolution, but I do want to just quickly summarize this. With this designation, we are designating this week, April 23 to 30, 2000, as National Shaken Baby Awareness Week. I do just want to read a few whereas clauses, which are chilling. Whereas head trauma is the leading cause of death of abused children, including the trauma known as Shaken Baby Syndrome; Whereas Shaken Baby Syndrome, which results from the care- giver losing control and shaking a baby usually less than 1 year of age, and can cause loss of vision, brain damage, paralysis, seizures, or death, is a totally preventable form of child abuse; Whereas an estimated 3,000 children are diagnosed with Shaken Baby Syndrome every year, with thousands more misdiagnosed and undetected; Whereas the most effective solution to ending Shaken Baby Syndrome is to prevent such abuse--what we are doing is we are designating this week: Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of April 23- 30 as National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week. Mr. President, I wish I did not have to introduce this resolution. I thank my colleagues for supporting it, but I think all the organizations that are working on this are doing extremely important work. It is hard to believe this happens to infants. It is hard to believe this happens to small children. I certainly cannot say on the floor of the Senate that agreeing to a resolution, ipso facto, ends this practice. But our agreeing to this resolution means a lot to people who have experienced this horror and to people who care deeply about this issue. I thank colleagues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 90, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and, finally, any statements there to be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow Senator Feinstein.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, briefly, in morning business, I want to take 2 minutes to speak to a related topic. I thank, again, the Senate Sergeant at Arms for his leadership, Jim Ziegler. I thank Senator Bennett for the key appropriations role he plays in his position as chairman. I thank Senator Harry Reid, who I think is the only Senator who has served on the Capitol Hill police force, and there are a good many others as well. I want to, one final time, speak to the issue before us. We lost two fine police officers, Officer Chestnut and Agent Gibson. All of us were affected by this tragedy but, first and foremost, their families. We made a commitment to do everything we could to make sure this never happens again. It is not possible to have any 100-percent guarantee, but we made that commitment, and we certainly need to, therefore, make the commitment by way of spending the money to make sure we have the necessary personnel to have two officers at each one of these posts. Otherwise, if we only have one officer, that officer is in real jeopardy. I say to my colleagues--I will speak on it week after week--I believe we are going to get this done. I know the Capitol Police Union is very active. It is true sometimes two policemen will be on one door, and there will not be that many people entering. The point is, at other times in the day, many people are entering. Even if it is only a few, all it takes--unfortunately, we know this; we have been through this nightmare--is one deranged individual to show up at one of these posts where there is only one officer, or that one deranged individual comes in as 30 or 40 other people are streaming in, and that police officer may not only not be able to defend the public and defend us but may not be able to defend himself or herself. This is no small issue. The request has been made, and it is crystal clear what we need to do. We better live up to our commitment, and we better provide the funding to support the Capitol Hill police. I cannot think of anything more important for us to do internally. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to build on the comments of my colleague, Senator Durbin--not in a shrill way but I guess in a determined way. A good friend of mine has really become a dear friend. I love his work. Jonathan Kozol wrote a book called ``Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation.'' He has now written another book. I think people in the country, as is the case with all of Jonathan's work--and I wouldn't be surprised if the Chair in his commitment to children hasn't read some of his work--have read his work because it is very important. He sent to me yesterday in the mail--I didn't bring it with me to the floor because I didn't realize I had a chance to speak--some data about per pupil expenditures in New York City and surrounding suburbs. The long and the short of it is that the suburbs surrounding the city, because of the wealth of the communities with strong reliance on property taxes, are able to spend about twice as much per pupil as the inner city. Not surprisingly, their teachers are certified and qualified, which is not the case necessarily in the city in terms of having had the experience of certification or expertise in the subject matter. Not surprisingly, therefore, there is tremendous variation in terms of those children and their opportunities to succeed. I raise this question because I hope that soon we will have the Elementary and Secondary Education Act out on the floor. When we do, I hope it will be the Senate at its best. I am going to register the same, if you will, grievance or sharp dissent from the majority leader. I haven't done it behind his back. He knows what my position is about the way we have been operating. I hope when this bill comes to the floor this will not be yet another case of the majority leader essentially saying: Look, only the following amendments will be in order. Any other amendments will not be. What happens is there is no agreement, and the majority leader files cloture. Then cloture is not invoked. Then the bill is pulled. I hope we don't see that. Last week, or the week before our recess, we had this debate over the marriage penalty tax. There were a number of us who wanted to bring out amendments that we thought were terribly important dealing with prescription drug costs. Again, the majority leader said: This isn't relevant, and therefore I choose not to go forward. We had a debate about it and cloture was invoked. We will have that debate again. Or there was an effort to invoke cloture, cloture was not obtained, and the bill was pulled. I think that is what happened, and, as a result, I think the Senate has lost its vitality. I was elected in 1991. Honest to goodness, I think it is the truth. I don't think anybody can present evidence to the contrary. The way I remember it was that up until fairly recently, this was the pattern: A bill would come to the floor. Senators would come with amendments. We might have 60 or 90 amendments. Some would drop off and some of them wouldn't. We could go at it. We would start in the morning, go into the evening, and take a week, or 10 days, or 2 weeks. But we had debates. We had discussion. We had votes. We dealt with issues that were important to people's lives. We voted yes. We voted no. We had some vitality. I say to the majority leader that I believe we have moved away from that to the detriment of this institution. I think we are sucking the vitality out of the Senate by the way we are conducting business. I strongly dissent from the majority leader in the way he has been proceeding. It is true that in this way people do not have to vote on amendments. But what representative democracy is all about is accountability. What the Senate is all about is it is an amendment body. It is a debate body. And individual Senators, whether you have a lot of seniority or whether you don't, can make a difference in the Senate--or could make a difference in the Senate before--because you could bring amendments and have at it. I started out focusing on children and education. I am real interested, as long as we are talking about high standards, in making sure every child has the same opportunity to meet those standards. I would like to talk about that. You and I, Mr. President, talked some about early childhood development and how important it is pre-K. Why isn't the Federal Government more of a player? Why aren't we getting more resources? Your colleague from Ohio feels just as strongly about it. You and I talked about it. Why is it that people working with children ages 3 and 4 do such important work, and then all of their work is so devalued in terms of the pay they make? How can we provide the incentive for men and women to go into the field? I am concerned, as is Senator Durbin, coming from a State such as mine that only one-third of senior citizens in our State have prescription drug coverage at all. I see it all the time in terms of what this has done to people. It is not atypical to talk to a single elderly woman whose husband has passed away. She might be 75. Her monthly income might be $600 and $300 of it is for prescription drug costs. I want to come out here to talk about a bill Senator Dorgan and I have worked on that would make a huge difference in terms of costs. But, no, we couldn't have that debate. I am from an agricultural State. We have an economic convulsion in agriculture. Many people who I love and respect work so hard. No one can say they don't work hard. It doesn't matter; they can work 19 hours a day. They can be the greatest managers in the world. They are being spit out of the economy and they are losing their farms in this economy. I want to talk about how we can make some changes to the farm bill passed in 1996 called Freedom to Farm--some of us call it ``freedom to fail''--so we can deal with the price crises. I would like to talk about whether we can reach an agreement on the antitrust action so producers can have a level playing field. Mr. President, there are many issues that are important to people's lives, whether people live in metro, urban, rural, or suburban communities. There are many issues that are important to children to make sure that we as a nation at least come closer to reaching our national vow of equal opportunity for every child. There are issues that deal with reform and, God knows, I would think all of us would hate the mix of money in politics. I can't stand raising money. I can't bear it. I hate getting on the phone. I think, systemically, it creates tremendous problems in terms of undercutting representative democracy, where some people have too much access to both parties at an institutional level and too many people don't. I would like to see us focus on reform. I have just mentioned some issues and I have taken up more than 5 minutes. I make the appeal to the majority leader in particular that we have at it, with the opportunity to bring amendments to the floor. Let's debate and operate the Senate at its best. We can be good Senators and be at our best. Some Senators can be great Senators if they have the opportunity to offer amendments and have adequate debate and vote them up or down and vote the legislation up or down. I am speaking in morning business. I am sick of morning business at quarter to 11. I want a bill out here. I want amendments. I want substantive debate and up-or-down votes, and I want us to be accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I want to start out by thanking the Chair for his courtesy. There are many who preside over the Senate who do not always listen to Members during debates while they are on the floor. You are one who does, and I have to thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield 40 minutes of my 60 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am more than pleased to give the Senator from West Virginia a good deal of my time. His words are profoundly important. I do not think there is anybody else in the Senate who can speak on this question the way Senator Byrd can, and I hope Senators hear him. After hearing Senator Byrd, I am going to be very brief. I do not know what I can add to what has been said by other Senators. The way I want to make my argument in just a couple of minutes, actually, is to say this: Senator Feinstein asked me: Do you need to be down on the floor and is it going to be one of these back-and-forth slugfest debates? I said: No, not at all. I do not have any disrespect for what you and Senator Kyl are doing, two colleagues whom I like; it is just that, for me, I am reluctant to support any constitutional amendments. The bar is very high. It is a high threshold test to me. Even for such a noble purpose as campaign finance reform, when Senator Hollings offered his amendment, I did not vote for it. I did not vote for a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the flag. I believe there have to be compelling reasons to vote for a constitutional amendment, and I do not think my colleagues have made a compelling case. I point out that States have moved forward with their own victims' rights legislation or constitutional amendments and, to my knowledge, their work has not been successfully challenged in the courts. I point out that Senators Leahy and Kennedy have legislation that gives victims more rights. They want to do it statutorily. As I see it--and I am not a lawyer--first we go this route and see what the States do. We can also say this is a national concern, a national question. Certainly that is my framework. I do not want to be inconsistent. First we try it statutorily. We pass our law. If the Supreme Court judicial review declares the law to be null and void, then at that point in time we may, indeed, want to come forward and say there is no alternative but to amend the Constitution. The Chair will smile but I am conservative about this question, for all the reasons Senator Byrd has so ably explained to all of us. The second point I wish to make is a little different, and it is my own way of thinking about it. I do believe, if we are going to talk about victims' rights, there is a whole lot I want us to do. I want us out here legislating. I made this argument this morning, and I do not know that I need to make it again. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico for a moment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my second argument is that I want, to the best of my ability, to represent the people in Minnesota, for that matter the people in the country, and I can think of a lot of legislation we could be working on that will give victims more rights. I have legislation I have been trying to get out on the floor which deals with violence against women and children--they are victims--that provides more protection, that can prevent this violence, that can save lives. Let's get at it legislatively. I do not say it so much in response to this effort on the part of my colleagues from California and Arizona, but, again what I was saying this morning, I hope soon we will get back to the vitality of the Senate, which is we go at it; we have legislation; we have vehicles; and we have amendments. We bring legislation to the floor, we debate, and we vote up or down. That is what we are here to do. I say to my colleagues who are concerned about victims' rights, I have legislation I want to bring to the floor that I believe does a whole lot by way of protecting victims, by way of making sure people do not become victims, in particular women and children. My third point is, of course, one of the problems with a constitutional amendment as opposed to a statutory alternative is that it is very difficult to undo what is done. There are some questions I have about this effort. A lot of the work I do with my wife Sheila deals with violence directed at women and children, what some call domestic violence. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Clearinghouse For The Defense of Battered Women and the National Network to End Domestic Violence be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is a tremendous amount of concern that what will happen is that batterers--and it is happening all too often right now--can accuse those whom they have battered as being the batterers, basically saying they are the victims, which then, in turn, triggers all sorts of rights that are in this amendment. There is tremendous concern, and I will not read through all of it, when it comes to a particular part of the population--women and children who are, unfortunately, the victims of this violence in the homes--that, in fact, this constitutional amendment will have precisely the opposite effect that is intended, especially when it comes to protection for women and children; it will lessen that protection for women and children. I quote from the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund: While many women are victims of violent crime, women are also criminal defendants. Self-defense cases, dual arrest situations, or the abuse of mandatory arrest and mandatory prosecution policies by batterers who allege abuse by the victim, exemplify contexts in which women victimized by violence may need the vital constitutional protections afforded defendants. There is a whole question of how this gets implemented, what happens to these women and children. Given the fact this is a big part of my work in the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that this NOW Legal Defense Fund position paper be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their effort. Again, the threshold has to be very high. I speak in opposition. With the indulgence of my colleagues, since I have been out here for a good period of time, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 5 more minutes for morning business to cover two matters.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 2465 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have decided now to start speaking about this subject again on the floor of the Senate. I think I will devote only 10 minutes a week on it. But I am going to do it every week. I must say, though, if we continue to operate the way we have been operating, I might as well speak about it much more because while we are dealing with a very serious question now, we are not about the business of legislating. I call on the majority leader to start getting legislation out and going at it on amendments. Let's bring some vitality back to the Senate. I do want to, one more time, say to my colleagues that most all of us attended a service for Officers Chestnut and Gibson. These were two police officers who were murdered. They were murdered in the line of duty. They were protecting us. They were protecting the public. I say to my colleagues one more time, I believe Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein on the Senate side are very supportive of doing whatever they can. But up to date, including today again, we have stations here where you have one police officer for lots of people coming through. That police officer is not safe. That police officer cannot do his or her job. We made a commitment to do everything we possibly could to make sure we would never experience again the loss of a police officer's life. We can never be 100 percent sure, but we ought to live up to the commitment to have two police officers at every station. I say this on the floor of the Senate--and I will pick up the pace of this later--if we cannot do that, then we ought to start shutting these doors, really. If we cannot have two officers per station and give them the support they deserve--I am talking about appropriations--then we basically ought to just close the doors. I think on the Senate side we have bipartisan support. I do not know what is happening on the House side. I must say, today I am pessimistic, in terms of what I have heard, that we might even be looking at cuts. But whatever we need to do, whether it be paying overtime or hiring additional officers, we need to do it so we do not lose any lives and we give the Capitol Hill police officers the support that we promised to give them. I say to my colleagues that I am worried that on the House side, in particular, we are not going to get the support. I think it should be bipartisan. I do not think anybody should have any question about this. Everybody says they are for police officers, and everybody says they are for protection and safety, and everybody says they will never forget the two fine officers whose lives were lost, and yet when it comes to digging in our pockets and doing it through appropriations, we are not there. Something is amiss. I will try to keep bringing this up every week and hopefully we can get this work done. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today, the Prescription Drug Price Equity Act of 2000. My colleague, Pete Stark, a Representative for the State of California in the House of Representatives--I want to give him full credit for having introduced this legislation in the House. I am proud to be a partner with him. The long and the short of it is this bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny tax benefits for research conducted by pharmaceutical companies where U.S. consumers pay higher prices for the products of that research than consumers in certain other countries, such as Canada. I could go into this in great detail, but I think the operational definition is of 5 percent more. I tell you right now, in my State of Minnesota, seniors and others are in a state of outrage by the fact they can go and buy the same drug--produced in this country, FDA approved--for half the price in another country. If we are going to be giving these tax benefits to these pharmaceutical companies, I think they are going to have to be more concerned about the very public that gives them these benefits. So I introduce this legislation and look forward to support from my colleagues. Mr. President, like the rest of my colleagues I have just returned from a week in my home State of Minnesota. I met with many constituents, but none with more compelling stories than senior citizens struggling to make ends meet because of the high cost of prescription drugs--life-saving drugs that are not covered under the Medicare program. Ten or 20 years ago these same senior citizens were going to work everyday--in the stores, and factories, and mines in Minnesota--earning an honest paycheck, and paying their taxes without protest. Now they wonder, how can this Government--their Government-- stand by, when the medicines they need are out of reach. The unfairness which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated of course by the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States--the same drugs that can be purchased for frequently half the price in Canada or Mexico or Europe. These are the exact same drugs, manufactured in the exact same facilities with the exact same safety precautions. A year ago, most Americans did not know that the exact same drugs are for sale at half the price in Canada. Today, you can bet the pharmaceutical industry wishes no one knew it. But the cat is out of the bag--and it is time for Congress to right the inequities that are rife in the way the United States government interacts with the pharmaceutical industry. Today, I want to focus on one of those inequities--the subsidies that the United States Government offers to pharmaceutical manufacturers to develop drugs which these same companies proceed to sell to the American people at up to twice the price they charge in other countries. To combat that problem I am introducing today the Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000, a bill to deny research tax credits to pharmaceutical companies that sell their products at significantly higher prices in the U.S. as compared to other industrialized countries. The need for this bill is clear. The U.S. Government provides lucrative tax credits to the pharmaceutical industry in this country in order to promote research and development of new lifesaving pharmaceutical products. Yet, in return for these government subsidies, the drug companies charge uninsured Americans the highest prices for drugs paid by anyone in the world. The Congressional Research Service recently completed an analysis of the tax treatment of the pharmaceutical industry. That analysis concluded that tax credits were a major contribution to lowering the average effective tax rate for drug companies by nearly 40 percent relative to other major industries from 1990 to 1996. Specifically, the report found that while similar industries pay a tax rate of 27.3 percent, the pharmaceutical industry is paying a rate of only 16.2 percent. At the same time, after-tax profits for the drug industry averaged 17 percent--three times higher than the 5 percent profit margin of other industries. It is time for the pharmaceutical industry to earn these tax benefits--by offering their life saving drugs to America's seniors at the same prices they charge in other countries. Numerous studies have shown that uninsured seniors pay exorbitant prices for pharmaceuticals. Surveys done by the Minnesota Senior Federation on the prices of the most commonly used drugs by Medicare beneficiaries found that in Minnesota, seniors pay on average about twice the price that Canadian seniors just across the border pay for the exact same medication. I know that the House Government Reform Committee compared prices of prescription drugs in the numerous districts around the country with the prices of prescription drugs in Canada. Those comparisons found price differentials in the exact same ballpark that we found in Minnesota. It is no wonder that Minnesota seniors are willing to spend their time and money to go across the border to buy their prescription medications. And the same is happening all over New England, in the Dakotas, in Montana, in Washington state, and elsewhere. Yet, at the same time that seniors are being asked to pay these outrageous prices, the drug companies are reaping the benefit of generous governmental subsidies. There's something wrong with a system that gives drug companies huge tax breaks while allowing them to price- gouge seniors. The Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000 attempts to correct this glaring inequity in a very even-handed approach. The message to pharmaceutical companies is this: So long as your company gives U.S. consumers a fair deal on drug prices as measured against the same products sold in other OECD countries, you will continue to qualify for all available research tax credits. But if your company is found to be fleecing American taxpayers with prices higher than those charged for the same product sold in other industrialized countries, like Japan, Germany, Switzerland, or Canada, then you become ineligible for those tax credits. I know that the pharmaceutical industry, through its trade association, PhRMA, will oppose the Prescription Price Equity Act and will claim that the bill means the end of pharmaceutical research and development. That is complete nonsense. As shown by Congressional Research Service, drug industry profits are already three times higher than all other major industries. This legislation doesn't change the current system of research tax credits at all unless drug companies refuse to fairly price their U.S. products. This bills intent is by no means to reduce the U.S. Government's role in promoting research and development. It is simply to make clear that in return for such significant government contributions to their industry, drug companies must treat American consumers fairly. Is there any reason why U.S. tax dollars should be used to allow drug prices to be reduced in other highly developed countries, but not here at home as well? Of course there is no good reason for that. That is why this bill simply tells PhRMA that U.S. taxpayers will no longer subsidize low prices in the OECD countries with our tax code. Research and development is important and that is why we give these huge tax breaks, but that research and development does little good for U.S. consumers who can't afford to buy the products of that research. This bill does not solve the biggest underlying problem that America's senior citizens face. Only a comprehensive, prescription drug benefit, available to and affordable by all Medicare beneficiaries will do that. I have introduced and cosponsored legislation that can make that happen. But this bill, the Prescription Price Equity Act, nonetheless, sends an important message. It makes clear that the priority of the Federal Government in subsidizing research and development is to make sure that the miracles of modern medicine that result are at least equally available to American citizens as they are to those in the rest of the industrialized world.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today, the Prescription Drug Price Equity Act of 2000. My colleague, Pete Stark, a Representative for the State of California in the House of Representatives--I want to give him full credit for having introduced this legislation in the House. I am proud to be a partner with him. The long and the short of it is this bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny tax benefits for research conducted by pharmaceutical companies where U.S. consumers pay higher prices for the products of that research than consumers in certain other countries, such as Canada. I could go into this in great detail, but I think the operational definition is of 5 percent more. I tell you right now, in my State of Minnesota, seniors and others are in a state of outrage by the fact they can go and buy the same drug--produced in this country, FDA approved--for half the price in another country. If we are going to be giving these tax benefits to these pharmaceutical companies, I think they are going to have to be more concerned about the very public that gives them these benefits. So I introduce this legislation and look forward to support from my colleagues. Mr. President, like the rest of my colleagues I have just returned from a week in my home State of Minnesota. I met with many constituents, but none with more compelling stories than senior citizens struggling to make ends meet because of the high cost of prescription drugs--life-saving drugs that are not covered under the Medicare program. Ten or 20 years ago these same senior citizens were going to work everyday--in the stores, and factories, and mines in Minnesota--earning an honest paycheck, and paying their taxes without protest. Now they wonder, how can this Government--their Government-- stand by, when the medicines they need are out of reach. The unfairness which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated of course by the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States--the same drugs that can be purchased for frequently half the price in Canada or Mexico or Europe. These are the exact same drugs, manufactured in the exact same facilities with the exact same safety precautions. A year ago, most Americans did not know that the exact same drugs are for sale at half the price in Canada. Today, you can bet the pharmaceutical industry wishes no one knew it. But the cat is out of the bag--and it is time for Congress to right the inequities that are rife in the way the United States government interacts with the pharmaceutical industry. Today, I want to focus on one of those inequities--the subsidies that the United States Government offers to pharmaceutical manufacturers to develop drugs which these same companies proceed to sell to the American people at up to twice the price they charge in other countries. To combat that problem I am introducing today the Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000, a bill to deny research tax credits to pharmaceutical companies that sell their products at significantly higher prices in the U.S. as compared to other industrialized countries. The need for this bill is clear. The U.S. Government provides lucrative tax credits to the pharmaceutical industry in this country in order to promote research and development of new lifesaving pharmaceutical products. Yet, in return for these government subsidies, the drug companies charge uninsured Americans the highest prices for drugs paid by anyone in the world. The Congressional Research Service recently completed an analysis of the tax treatment of the pharmaceutical industry. That analysis concluded that tax credits were a major contribution to lowering the average effective tax rate for drug companies by nearly 40 percent relative to other major industries from 1990 to 1996. Specifically, the report found that while similar industries pay a tax rate of 27.3 percent, the pharmaceutical industry is paying a rate of only 16.2 percent. At the same time, after-tax profits for the drug industry averaged 17 percent--three times higher than the 5 percent profit margin of other industries. It is time for the pharmaceutical industry to earn these tax benefits--by offering their life saving drugs to America's seniors at the same prices they charge in other countries. Numerous studies have shown that uninsured seniors pay exorbitant prices for pharmaceuticals. Surveys done by the Minnesota Senior Federation on the prices of the most commonly used drugs by Medicare beneficiaries found that in Minnesota, seniors pay on average about twice the price that Canadian seniors just across the border pay for the exact same medication. I know that the House Government Reform Committee compared prices of prescription drugs in the numerous districts around the country with the prices of prescription drugs in Canada. Those comparisons found price differentials in the exact same ballpark that we found in Minnesota. It is no wonder that Minnesota seniors are willing to spend their time and money to go across the border to buy their prescription medications. And the same is happening all over New England, in the Dakotas, in Montana, in Washington state, and elsewhere. Yet, at the same time that seniors are being asked to pay these outrageous prices, the drug companies are reaping the benefit of generous governmental subsidies. There's something wrong with a system that gives drug companies huge tax breaks while allowing them to price- gouge seniors. The Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000 attempts to correct this glaring inequity in a very even-handed approach. The message to pharmaceutical companies is this: So long as your company gives U.S. consumers a fair deal on drug prices as measured against the same products sold in other OECD countries, you will continue to qualify for all available research tax credits. But if your company is found to be fleecing American taxpayers with prices higher than those charged for the same product sold in other industrialized countries, like Japan, Germany, Switzerland, or Canada, then you become ineligible for those tax credits. I know that the pharmaceutical industry, through its trade association, PhRMA, will oppose the Prescription Price Equity Act and will claim that the bill means the end of pharmaceutical research and development. That is complete nonsense. As shown by Congressional Research Service, drug industry profits are already three times higher than all other major industries. This legislation doesn't change the current system of research tax credits at all unless drug companies refuse to fairly price their U.S. products. This bills intent is by no means to reduce the U.S. Government's role in promoting research and development. It is simply to make clear that in return for such significant government contributions to their industry, drug companies must treat American consumers fairly. Is there any reason why U.S. tax dollars should be used to allow drug prices to be reduced in other highly developed countries, but not here at home as well? Of course there is no good reason for that. That is why this bill simply tells PhRMA that U.S. taxpayers will no longer subsidize low prices in the OECD countries with our tax code. Research and development is important and that is why we give these huge tax breaks, but that research and development does little good for U.S. consumers who can't afford to buy the products of that research. This bill does not solve the biggest underlying problem that America's senior citizens face. Only a comprehensive, prescription drug benefit, available to and affordable by all Medicare beneficiaries will do that. I have introduced and cosponsored legislation that can make that happen. But this bill, the Prescription Price Equity Act, nonetheless, sends an important message. It makes clear that the priority of the Federal Government in subsidizing research and development is to make sure that the miracles of modern medicine that result are at least equally available to American citizens as they are to those in the rest of the industrialized world.