Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. What was the last drug?

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I add to the Senator's list two drugs? So much of this is personal. I am sure he hears from people in North Dakota what I hear from people in Minnesota, that this drives them crazy. Permax is a drug to manage Parkinson's disease. The same bottle in the United States is $398.24, and the Canadian price is $189. I mention this because I ran into a teacher a couple months ago in my hometown who, when I met him--I have not seen him for a while--I said: How are you doing? We shook hands. I know Parkinson's. Both my parents had it. I know it in the palm of my hand. I felt the shake. I said: Are you taking Sinemet? He said: Yes, but there is a better drug. I said: Are you taking the other one? He said: I cannot afford it. This is by way of an example. Did the Senator from North Dakota mention tamoxifen? It is a breast cancer drug. The United States price, same bottle, is $287; Canadian price, $24. I wanted to add two more examples to what my colleague mentioned.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will take 1 more minute. Other Senators want to speak. Senator Stabenow has been a leader on this legislation for a long time and has been coordinating the effort of all Democrats. Let me just conclude this way: I know Senators do not want to be seen as opposing an amendment that would enable all of our seniors and all of our citizens to be able to get a reasonable price for prescription drugs. My fear is that we will have an amendment out here with fine- sounding language which will create a huge loophole and will basically kill this amendment by giving any Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to stop this legislation before it is ever implemented. That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable. We cannot let the pharmaceutical industry kill this bill and kill this amendment. I believe that people in Minnesota, people in Michigan, and people around the country look at this as simple. I have said it before. I will conclude it this way. I think this is a test case of whether we have a system of democracy for the few or a democracy for the many. If it is a democracy for the many, we will support this provision. If is democracy for a few of the pharmaceutical companies, the devil is in the details. They will be able to create a huge loophole, which will mean this will never be implemented and they will be able to kill it. I urge all colleagues to support this Dorgan, Wellstone, Stabenow, et al, amendment and to resist any amendment to essentially gut this amendment and stop this piece of legislation from being implemented. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, there are other Senators on the floor. I had spoken earlier. I think I can probably cover the ground in 3 or 4 minutes. I think it is best to be as concrete as possible. Coumadin is a blood thinner widely used in the United States. A bottle is $20.99. For the same bottle, dosage, the Canadian price is $6.23. Zocor, which is a cholesterol drug, in the United States: $116.69; our neighbor Canada, $5.51; Permax, to manage Parkinson's disease, $398.24; Canadian price, $189.26; tamoxifen, breast cancer drug, $287.16; the Canadian price, U.S. dollars, 24.78. That is what this amendment is about that Senator Dorgan and I, Senator Stabenow, and others have supported. Our amendment passed overwhelmingly. I have heard so much said in the last couple hours. That is why it is hard to get started, because if you get started, it goes on and on. Families USA came out with a study today that makes it pretty clear that by a 2-to-1 margin, pharmaceutical companies spend the money on advertising and marketing as opposed to research, with profits beyond belief--what I have described as Viagra-like profits--based upon the misery, sickness, and illness of elderly people. The pharmaceutical industry hates this amendment that has passed. They don't want to see people in Minnesota or Illinois or anywhere in the country get this discount, and they don't want to see downward pressure on prices. They don't want this to happen. The industry would be happy for us to pump in as much money as possible, as long as we give them a blank check and they can fill it in. The amendment we have before us, the Cochran amendment, basically says that this amendment we just passed, this legislation, only becomes effective if the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies to the Congress that implementation of this section will ``pose no additional risk to the public health and safety and will result in a significant reduction in cost of covered products.'' I don't know about the ``reduction.'' I think it is pretty clear it is going to be a significant reduction. I have two views about this. The first is, we have had two prior Secretaries of Health and Human Services--it creates such a loophole that they have refused to provide the certification. The pharmaceutical industry, which is so powerful and has always gotten its way, it gives them the perfect opportunity to lobby against it and stop it--no question about that. This amendment may have passed with all of our votes, although I must say I will vote for it with very mixed feelings because I believe in my heart of hearts that this Secretary of Health and Human Services will do everything to block implementation of the legislation we passed earlier today. However, there are at least two or three things that are different, and now the optimist in me will conclude. One is that we are only talking about Canada. Anybody who really looks at this with any kind of rigor will realize it is hard to argue when you don't have the same stringent health and safety guidelines, and all of this has to be FDA guidelines in any case, No. 1. Second of all, expectations are up. If you don't think this isn't a big deal to people--to have a dramatic reduction in the price of prescription drugs so they can afford it--you are wrong. Therefore, I believe what has happened today--this amendment will pass overwhelmingly, close to a 100-percent vote. It has raised people's expectations. I don't mind that. I would rather have expectations raised than lowered around the country. And it is not just senior citizens; it is all citizens who benefit from this. My final message to the Senior Federation of Minnesota and the other citizens groups who have been fighting so hard is that we should have an overwhelming vote for prescription drug reimportation, and then a strong vote for the Cochran amendment. I think we have more to deal with on health and safety issues, but we have to do it this way. But if this Secretary of Health and Human Services should block this in perpetuity--and it is clear he has no intention of certifying this--or any Secretary of Health and Human Services, representing either party-- as a couple colleagues on the other side of the aisle give me that look--I say to the seniors of Minnesota, and all other citizens, all those buses you have been taking to Canada, take them right here to Washington, DC. Come right to the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and demand that he or she not block this in the future. We are expecting Secretary Thompson to move on this. We are not expecting him to use the Cochran amendment as a gigantic loophole to block the legislation we passed today that would provide a serious discount and would provide many more affordable prescription drugs to people. As a Senator from Minnesota, I will join the buses if we need to go down to the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Let's hope we don't need to go.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Ten minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will not object. But I ask the Senator, you locked in time?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this week I voted not to confirm Lavenski Smith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes my State of Minnesota. While I have supported the vast majority of administration appointments that have come to the floor to date, I voted against this nominee because I am concerned about his lack of experience and qualifications, as well as about what I consider to be an excessively ideological approach to important issues, such as women's reproductive rights, in his legal work so far. Our district needs and deserves the best judges, especially because they receive lifetime appointments. I regret that the President did not nominate a person with a more distinguished record to this important position. Mr. Smith has just 7 years' experience practicing law, in which time he has gained minimal Federal experience and minimal appellate experience. He has no experience arguing cases before the Eighth Circuit, the court to which he has now been confirmed. In addition to his lack of experience, Mr. Smith has advocated ideologically tendentious legal positions that I believe may cast doubt on his ability to adjudicate cases fairly. In the one appellate case in which Mr. Smith took a lead role, his argument in relation to reproductive rights was unanimously rejected by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The court's decision observed that Mr. Smith disregarded both judicial precedent and the plain meaning of the Arkansas Constitution in making his case. The circuit court of appeals is one step from the Supreme Court. Yet the Arkansas Times wrote of this nominee: ``Lavenski Smith of Little Rock is not the best qualified Arkansan President Bush could have chosen for the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, nor even close.'' Whatever State a nominee might come from, Minnesota and the Eighth Circuit deserve better.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I would like to speak for about 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, with the indulgence of the Senator from Massachusetts, I wonder if I could have 10 minutes after the minority so I could go back to a markup?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I have just very brief remarks. I thank my colleagues. I have to go back to a committee hearing. I will be back for this debate day after day after day for the next 2 weeks because it is so important to the people of Minnesota. I take exception to the remarks of the minority leader, as is quite often the case. I think it is an honest disagreement. I think, whether it be 50 votes or 60 votes, if we have a will there is a way. We voted 97 to 0 for a piece of legislation last night. We should have passed it. It was extremely important security reform legislation that was critical for people in the country. Frankly, affordable prescription drug coverage is also critical for people in the country, for senior citizens, and others as well. So if there is a will there is a way. We need to get started with this debate. I don't think we should be putting it off at all. It is a compelling interest, a compelling issue in people's lives. In Minnesota, 40 percent of senior citizens have no coverage whatsoever. I remember a couple of months ago, actually, Helen Dewar from the Washington Post came out to Minnesota to cover the campaign. She spent time with different people. I wanted her to go to Northfield, which was really our home where I taught college, because I wanted her to go to the Quality Bakery--just a great place, a family-run bakery. We were sitting in there talking and she was meeting with people and this man came in. I don't remember his name. I should have, but I did not remember his name, but I recognized him. It was a small town. We shook hands, and as soon as we shook hands I knew he had Parkinson's disease. I know that disease like the palm of my hand. Both my parents had Parkinson's. I could feel the shaking. We were talking and I said: Are you on Sinemet? He said: Yes, but there is another drug people are talking about that would be more helpful. And I said: What about that? And he looked at me and he said: I can't afford it. This is unconscionable. I want to say just a couple of things. These are the principles. Everybody is talking about getting together. That is absolutely critically important, but these are the principles. No. 1, it ought to be affordable. You can't have the premiums too high. If you are going to talk about a premium or a deductible, we can't just suggest it. People have to make sure it is there. That is the problem with the House. There are suggestions about a deductible, but it is not part of Medicare, not a defined benefit. People don't know for sure. No. 2, you bet it has to be catastrophic expenses. But if you have, for example, like on the House side it is between $2,000 and $3,700--no coverage at all. People are saying it will not make sense. We are paying premiums and you are not going to help us when we have bills over $2,000 a year--that is when we need the most help. No. 3, absolutely make sure, for low-income seniors, they are not having to pay a lot or maybe anything. But if you are going to say that, then don't have stingy means tests where you say if they have a car worth more than $4,500, or a burial fund worth more than $1,500, they could be disqualified. Don't do that. Don't do that. Make sure it is affordable. Finally, make sure as a matter of fact there is some way that people know this is really, again, going to be a benefit for them, and it will make a real difference. I think that is why you put it on Medicare. I understand what is going on here. The pharmaceutical industry--any bill that sort of meets their test is a little bit suspect. I know they are not interested in having the affordable coverage. I know they are not interested in broad coverage. And they are also, of course, not interested in any potential cost containment. If it becomes a part of Medicare, it is absolutely true that at a certain point in time we may very well say: Look, what we are doing here is giving a blank check to the industry, and you are filling in the amount and it is exorbitant prices and there has to be some cost containment. I want to make a humble suggestion. It is a bill I will be bringing out with Senator Dorgan, Senator Stabenow, and others. Here is one thing we could do that could be a part of our overall getting the work done for people right here in the Senate. We could pass a provision which would say that our citizens, American citizens, can reimport back from Canada these prescription drugs meeting the strictest, same FDA guidelines, consumer protection guidelines. They ought to be able to do so. That not only helps senior citizens, it helps all the citizens. Do you know what is interesting? You are talking about widely used drugs for depression, for cancer, for heart disease, at 30, 40, 50 percent discount. This is a winner, colleagues, and I believe that ought to be part of the mix as well. I think the minority leader is wrong. Time is not neutral. I think people are expecting us to do the work. I think we should. If we believe we ought to do this, there ought to be a strong vote for it. I think the Graham and Miller and Kennedy bill is an extremely important start. I think there will be other amendments to strengthen it. But the main thing is we make this part of Medicare. It is not a suggestion. It is a benefit people can count on. We make sure it is affordable in terms of the premiums and the payments, and we make sure it covers the catastrophic bills that put people under. I don't want to talk about the problems anymore. We have been talking about the problems forever. Let us talk about the solution. Let us get going. Let us start the debate. We should start. We should not delay anymore. We should have amendments out here. I am ready with an amendment and a provision which I have worked on for years on drug reimportation. Other Senators have amendments. We should get this work done. My last point is that I think people are counting on us. There is a critically important issue. There is important work to be done. No more delay; let us all come out here and have the debate. Let us be accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Britt Gordon McKein, who is an intern, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate today.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Richard McKeon, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on prescription drugs.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the minority leader for his courtesy. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the minority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Maine, and I know the Senator from Michigan is here, I will actually be very brief. This will not be a typical Wellstone speech. I only have about 10 minutes. I say to the Senators from New York and Massachusetts, I very much enjoyed their discussion. I thank the Senator from New York for his leadership on this issue. I remember, I say to Senator Schumer, during my years here two very humorous situations; one especially where somebody tried to extend the patent for Lodine. I actually found out about this, and I think Senator Kennedy was also involved in trying to get to the bottom of it. It was in the language of the bill, but nobody would take credit for it. Nobody would take credit for having done this, although obviously somebody put in the language. It was you laugh or you cry--the whole notion that we can extend the patent and it does not go generic and they make a lot of money. But who gets hurt as a result? The same thing has come up with Claritin as well. This is a no- brainer of where 99 percent of the people of the country are, that is for sure. The only issue on which I disagree with my colleague from New York-- and I am sorry to be the one more hard hitting on this, and I do apologize--I do not know that the pharmaceutical companies have lost their way--as in recently. As I go back--Senator Kennedy probably knows the history better than I do--I have done a lot of reading about Estes Kefauver in the early fifties. He took on the pharmaceutical industry, and they took him on. David Pryor, am I not correct, really did this? We have been battling it out with him for a long time. This is an industry that has been making Viagra-like profits, if I can say that on the floor of the Senate. It would be funny and a little cute to say it, except that what this really means is people cannot afford the prescription drugs, at least the people I represent. This legislation is very important. I know Senator Collins has worked very hard on it. There is quite a bit of bipartisan support. I had a chance to speak earlier this morning about other provisions. I heard Senator Graham speak earlier. Senator Kennedy has spoken about it. I want to say one thing about two other pieces of this in about 4 minutes. One is on this whole question of, how are we going to make sure there are affordable prescription drugs? I think delivery is critically important. There is a world of difference between adding this on to Medicare and making it a defined benefit. We are learning all about defined benefits versus defined contributions as people see what is happening to 401(k)s versus the language in the House bill that suggests this will be the deductible and suggests this will be the premium but, frankly, there is no guarantee of it. This needs to be a defined benefit, and it does need to be a part of Medicare. We ought to at least agree on that. Then I think there are going to be these trade-offs as to how much money versus how good is catastrophic coverage. I am sorry to go sort of populist on everyone, but I think I heard the Senator from Florida say earlier that for those of us in the Senate and the House--and we make pretty darn good salaries compared to the vast majority of the people we represent--something like 80 percent of our prescription drugs are covered. We might pay 20 percent, and that is it. It seems to me we ought to do as well for the people we represent. My dream is to someday be in the Senate when we are debating Medicare for all. That is what I want to get back to. I almost think the people we represent should have as good a plan as we have through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. But that is another debate for another time. I cannot imagine how any of us could support any legislation that says when it comes to catastrophic expenses, after someone is over $2,000 a year--the very point where people are hurting--then we say we are not going to give any coverage, not until they get up to $3,700. That is nonsense. People say: What do you mean? One of the things we want you to do is help us deal with what happens when our expenses go up year to year. That is the second point. The third thing I want to mention is I am going to be doing a bill on the whole question of drug reimportation for the year, which Senator Dorgan has addressed. It could be Senator Snowe and Senator Collins will be a part of this. I know Senator Stabenow is. We are going to have legislation or an amendment that deals with cost containment, and I want to say one more time it is a simple and straightforward proposition. We are coming out together, and I assume there will be some strong bipartisan support. I know I am going to do it with Senator Dorgan and Senator Stabenow, and I think there will be Republicans as well. Basically, what we are going to say is you use the same FDA strict safety guidelines, and our citizens ought to be able to reimport these drugs. I want to give some examples, and then I will be finished, I say to my colleague from Maine. Celebrex, which is used for arthritis: A bottle costs $84.95 in the United States and $30.99 in Canada. Glucophage, a medicine for diabetes, costs $63.12 in the United States and $16.68 in Canada. Think about that. I will not do the arithmetic because people can figure it out. Methotrexate, a drug for cancer: $51.03 in the United States, $17.30 in Canada; Tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug: $287.16 in the United States, $24.78 in Canada--same bottle, same dosage. Imagine that. There is nothing that infuriates people more in Minnesota, makes them believe they are more exploited and ripped off by this industry, than this sharp contrast in prices. There is legislation that Senator Dorgan, Senator Stabenow, and I are going to introduce, as well as others--I do not want to speak for Senator Collins, but Senator Collins and Senator Snowe have been real leaders on this issue. This does not ask the Federal Government to spend any more money. We do not have to run into that issue. We do not have to talk about how much it is going to cost. This will dramatically reduce the cost of prescription drugs for our citizens. The only question is this, and then I will sit down: I can promise, once people know it is the same strict FDA guidelines, once we make it clear if anything ever happens, if this goes wrong, then emergency action can be taken--I will say to the Chair this will happen in Nebraska--90 percent of the people are going to say: Absolutely, this is the best kind of free trade, and we ought to be able to do this. We ought to be able to reimport, or our pharmacists should be able to do it. There is one interest that is going to be opposed--pharmaceutical companies. They are not going to like it. But at a certain point in time do we not say: Tough luck. This is going to be a test case of a vote of whether we are going to represent the people in our States, democracy for the many, or whether we are going to let the pharmaceutical companies stop it. It is that simple. We had a 97-to-0 vote last night on legislation on which Senator Sarbanes and others worked so hard. That was stuck in committee forever, and people finally said: We have had enough. Do you know what. People in the country said it. People in the country are beginning to say: We have had enough. We do not want the pharmaceutical industry to run the show. We want you, Senator, to be accountable to us. That is what these votes are going to be about. This is going to be a test case of whether we have a real system of representative democracy working. I have taken some positions where I know the majority of people do not agree with me, but not in this debate, not in terms of where the vast majority of people in all of our States are. Let us not disappointment them. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the Leahy amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to come out here on the floor and thank Senator Sarbanes for his leadership in putting together a piece of legislation that deals with structural reform of corporate governance and auditing independence. I also think what the chairman didn't do is very important. Senator Sarbanes didn't just call for a roundup of the usual suspects but for the prosecution of the worst offenders who deliberately have enriched themselves at the expense of the employees, investors, and creditors, and then try to claim that it is the end of the matter. This bill does hold bad actors accountable for their fraud and deception. And it is probably going to be stronger by the time it leaves the Senate Chamber. The legislation goes much further, and it should because the problem goes much deeper. We are faced with much more than just the wrongdoing of individual executives. We are faced with a crisis in confidence in America's capital markets and in American business. These corporate insider scandals are threatening the economic security of families all across Minnesota, North Dakota, New Jersey, Maryland, and all across the country. It is heartbreaking. You have people who have taken their savings and put them into stock. This is what was going to be their resources to help send their kids to college or to meet other family needs. The value of that has eroded. Other people have 401(k) plans and are counting on that for retirement security. The value of that has eroded. But I think the other big issue is really important, which is above and beyond hundreds of billions of dollars wiped out. That is what has happened already. You do not have investor confidence. Without investor confidence, we will not have the economic recovery that we need. Jobs aren't being created. Frankly, this affects all of us. It is this last problem on which I want to focus. I see my colleague from New Jersey who knows much more about finance than I do. There is a business cycle. Some years are good and some years are bad. Sometimes companies do well and sometimes companies don't do well. Sometimes people invest more and sometimes they invest less. That is the risk they take. If the only problem was that executives at Enron were corrupt and their business failed--all of which is true--or WorldCom officers were fudging the books and the company really wasn't all that profitable-- which is true--and that a lot of businesses, such as Global Crossing-- what they were doing, to be blunt, was just fake--which is true--even with all of that, I don't think we would be out here on the floor with this legislation. In other words, if the story was only that a bunch of companies did badly, lost money, went bankrupt, and a whole lot of other people were hurt, frankly, I still don't think we would feel this sense of urgency. But that is not the end of the story. The reason we need this legislation goes way beyond Enron and WorldCom. It is not just because of Global Crossing. It is not just because of MicroStrategy. We need this legislation, and it ought not be cluttered with extraneous amendments, or with delay, because the American investing public has lost its confidence in this corporate system. I want to emphasize this point because I think some colleagues--some, not all of my colleagues--on the other side of the aisle don't seem to get it. I hate to say it, but I don't think the President or the administration gets what this is really about. Again, the President yesterday basically focused on a handful of corporate executives who deliberately misled investors. He talked about a few bad apples. It goes much deeper than that. Listen to the words of some other members of the administration, such as Donald Evans, Secretary of Commerce, who 2 days ago said: The system has not failed us, but a few have failed the system. The President said the same thing yesterday. Treasury Secretary O'Neil said last year that Enron's collapse was ``capitalism working.'' Now, if these individuals didn't have substantial responsibility for the economy, then their comments would be comical. I guess if we asked these guys about Watergate, they would say it was just a burglary. But we are dealing with more structural and deeper issues. The crisis is a crisis in faith. Investors who thought that if a corporation was doing badly and making poor decisions it would show up on their financial reports now have found out that is not the case. By the way, we should not be shocked by this. In fact, this should be old news to us. Almost 2 years ago, the then-Chairman of the SEC, Arthur Levitt, approached many of us--I remember the discussion with him in my office--and he said: ``Paul, we are on the brink of a crisis in accounting.'' What Levitt was saying is, I want to put into effect a rule which is basically going to say that the Andersens of this world cannot be pulling in all these luxurious contracts and money for their internal auditing and all the rest, because once they get all the money, they are going to be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. Secondly, they will be put in a position of auditing their own auditing. That is a conflict of interest, and the consequences of it could be tragic for a lot of innocent people. Arthur Levitt was right. Of the decisions I have made in the Senate, one of the best decisions I ever made was 2 years ago in writing a strong letter of support for the then-Chair of the SEC for what he was trying to do. The auditors haven't done a good job because they have been too close to the firms that they were supposed to be auditing. That is what Arthur Levitt was talking about. He fought for greater auditor independence. His solution looked a lot like what is in this bill. I am glad I supported his reform. That was a pretty lonely position back then for Chairman Levitt. I am glad the Sarbanes bill is going to get a lot more support. I believe it is going to pass overwhelmingly. The Sarbanes bill does a number of different things. No. 1, at the core of this crisis is the need to have auditor independence. That is part of what the Sarbanes bill is all about. One hundred years ago, we had politicians and business leaders who were willing to take on entrenched corporate interests that were stifling competition--sound familiar--that were bilking customers and bilking consumers and that basically were enslaving their workers. We are dealing with similar kinds of issues now. We are now in a new century. This is going to be a real interesting case study--I was a political science teacher--as to whether or not the Senate and the Congress and this administration will, in fact, be there for strong reform. The other part of this legislation which is also important is to hold the corporate insiders accountable for their abusive actions. That is why I am so supportive of the Leahy amendment. If you ask people in any coffee shop in Minnesota, should there be criminal penalties for altering the documents, such as a 10-year felony, they will say, absolutely. If you ask people in Minnesota, should there be whistleblower protection for employees of public companies who actually blow the whistle on these kinds of abuses of power and corruption, people in Minnesota say, absolutely. If you ask, should there be criminal penalties for securities fraud, create a new 10-year felony for defrauding shareholders of a publicly traded company, people in Minnesota will answer, absolutely. The President spoke yesterday, and the problem is, he did not call for enough resources. He has a lot of tough rhetoric, but then when you look at what is behind the rhetoric you don't see the resources the SEC needs for the oversight. You don't see an oversight board that is set up, as the Sarbanes bill does, with authority and independence. Most importantly, from the President we don't get any proposals that insist on auditor independence. If we have learned one thing, it is that Chairman Levitt was right. Two years ago, Arthur Levitt tried to warn all of us. All of these big companies, accounting companies and all these other people who are tied into this finance, some of the biggest investors, frankly, in politics in the country--I know of no other way to say it--all lobbied hard. Arthur Levitt was clobbered by a whole bunch of people, but he was right. Now we have a chance to do the right thing. If you were to go back over the last decade, we have passed too much legislation that has taken away some of the individual investor rights, that has made it harder for us to have Government oversight, that refused to look at these blatant conflict of interest situations. As a result of that, we have these corporate insider scandals. I will say one more time, it is heartbreaking, hundreds of billions of dollars have been lost. It is heartbreaking to see what this has done to people's savings who invested in stock. It is heartbreaking to see what it has done to 401(k) plans, heartbreaking to see the ways in which families are terrified in Minnesota and around the country. Most fundamental of all is, we don't have investor confidence any longer. I say to my colleague from Maryland, the best thing he did, above and beyond this bill, is he didn't just say, let's go after a few bad apples. He didn't just say that. That would be the end of it. He has dealt with the underlying structural issues so we can prevent this from happening again. I am extremely proud to support this bill. I can think of some zinger amendments. When I think of these guys who got the golden parachutes, I am amazed. Look at WorldCom.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just finish one quick point. With WorldCom, you are looking at a situation where at the very time--the same old story--they are getting employees to do away with defined benefit packages and then they put their employees in 401(k)s, cheerleading the 401(k)s, while they are doing that, they are dumping their stock. They got out with golden parachutes, all this money. It is outrageous what has happened at the individual abuse level. It is much deeper than the wrongdoing of these individual corporate chieftains and governance. It gets to the structural issues. That is what is so important about this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. One more minute. What I said earlier, the problem with rounding up the usual suspects is quite often you then say that is the end of the matter. That is why the President's proposals yesterday come in for strong constructive criticism. The story in the Post today in the business section is another outrageous example of what happened. WorldCom swallows MCI and tells the MCI employees they don't have a defined benefit any longer and puts them on the 401(k), cheerleads them on to put the investment into the company, cooks the books, and doesn't give them any accurate information on what happened to them. Now what happens to all these MCI employees? They don't have any of the savings any longer. So do you know what. We have to hold these people accountable, absolutely, but at the same time don't let anybody--people in Minnesota--get away with saying it is a few bad apples and that is all we are going to deal with. No. We are going to deal with the conflict of interest and we are going to have structural reforms. We are going to have oversight. We are going to protect consumers, the little people, and give the business community more confidence so they do the investing in the economy. That is what is at stake with this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague from Indiana wanted to speak for 5 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent he be allowed to speak for 5 minutes, after which I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent Fiona Wright of my staff be given floor privileges for the duration of the debate on this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes.