Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Wisconsin, and others, including the Senator from Alaska and my colleagues who have agreed to a compromise. The history of disaster aid in this Congress is well over a century old. This is not a new issue. For well over a century, Congress has dealt with the issue of disasters that have occurred in some parts of this country. I am proud of supporting disaster aid for areas of this country that suffer earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, floods, and tornadoes. In the case of the fires that recently ravaged and injured so many people and their property in New Mexico, I am proud to say that I wanted us to help them, and we did. I am proud to say I helped the folks in Los Angeles who were flattened by earthquakes, and the folks in Texas who have been injured by drought. It is one of those areas of public spending where I say it is the best this country has to offer. When a region of this country, when its people are flat on their backs from causes that they could not control, this Congress extends its hand and says to them: You are not alone. We want to help you. We have a long tradition of doing that, and I am proud of that tradition. In North Dakota, as my colleague indicated, late one night in June, several thunderstorms converged together and then did not move. In a State that gets 17 inches of rainfall in a year, in one spot they received 18 to 20 inches in 36 hours. Think of that. About a week and a half later, the Red River Valley, land that is dead flat, flat as a table top, received 8 inches of rain in 6 hours. They were flooded. Up to 1.7 million acres of farmland that people planted in the spring with the sweat of their brow and risked their money to plant were either destroyed or severely damaged. We ask Congress to recognize that this, too, is a natural disaster for those producers and people who live in those areas. That is what this is about. None of us in this Chamber should ever be bashful about saying there are people in need in this country, and when that need exists because of causes they did not control or could not control-- fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods--then we should respond. It represents the very best impulse, in my judgment, of this body. That is what this debate is about. From our standpoint, it is especially about family farmers. As I said earlier today, they are some of the best in this country. They risk their money. They hope for a good crop. So many things are beyond their control. Then they discover that late one night a hailstorm comes through, and the crops are devastated; or a flood inundates their crops; or a drought dries them up; or the insects come and eat them out; or disease comes and their crop is gone. That is what this is about. Mr. President, those tonight who worked for a solution to add some emergency funding to this piece of legislation have done those in need in this country a service. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Mexico and also to the Senators from Texas and Arizona that it is my intention, having offered this amendment, to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment after I have had a chance to discuss exactly what the Senator from New Mexico just described--new events that have occurred that have been quite disastrous in my State and some others that are now occurring in a significant region of the country dealing with drought. My point is to say this about this amendment--and some of my colleagues will want to reinforce it. We have an agricultural disaster, not with respect to the collapse of commodity prices but with respect to floods and drought that have destroyed a significant number of crops in various parts of our country. If I might, with my colleagues' consent, show a picture of a fellow standing in front of about 300 acres of soybeans. As you can see, it is of course nothing but water. These soybeans are gone. It is the result of a June 12 and June 13 deluge of rain that fell in the Red River Valley, somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 to 19 inches of rain in a period of about 36 hours. Let me say that again. In the Red River Valley, on dead flat land, 16 to 19 inches of rain fell in some areas in about 36 hours. Then on June 19, in Cass County, and in Richland County, and several other areas of the State, in a 6- hour period a group of thunderstorms came together and dumped 8 to 9 inches of rain in a very short period of time. The result was fields as far as the eye could see that looked exactly like this, with crops planted that are devastated and destroyed. In fact, in the Red River Valley area, both in the northern and the southern part of the valley, about 1.7 million acres of crops were lost or significantly damaged as a result of those two devastating events. We also have a significant drought that is occurring right now in the southern part of our country. As you know, crops are burning up at an accelerated pace. We have a disaster occurring for farmers in other parts of the country. Let me again say it is my intention to seek consent to withdraw the amendment. I offered the amendment for the purpose of saying to the Congress that, yes, in fact, new events have occurred beginning on June 12 and 13 in our State when 18 to 19 inches of rain fell in about 36 hours, devastating a million and three-quarters acres of crop land. New events are occurring this week, and occurred last week, and I assume in the weeks ahead, with respect to the crops in the southern region of the United States. I think we will have to address this issue. I think somehow we have to find a way to provide some assistance to those family farmers whose crops have been destroyed by a natural disaster. Some will say perhaps there was some money provided earlier in the year in an agriculture bill for family farmers. That of course is true, and it dealt with the issue of collapsed grain prices. That reimbursement had to do with the collapse of market prices for commodities. There is, however, a circumstance in our country today, given the new laws in recent years, in which we don't have a disaster program available to try to provide some assistance when these disasters occur. I offered the amendment for the purpose of discussing it, as will my colleague. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I now send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague and friend from Arizona, Senator McCain. I want to talk about a number of things that have been discussed about sugar, the sugar program, in this amendment. First, let me talk about ``free trade.'' There is not free trade in sugar around the world. It is not the case that the price that is described as the world price for sugar represents a free trade price. It is a fact that most sugar that is bought and sold around the world is bought and sold on contracts between countries. The quantity of sugar that is produced above that is sold on the dump market for dump market prices, but most sugar is traded or sold between countries on contract. So the price that is quoted as the world price for sugar is not the world price for sugar at all. That is a myth. That is No. 1. No. 2, the issue of who is getting a subsidy; is someone getting a large subsidy? There aren't any subsidies. This is not a program that has a subsidy. This is not a program in which the taxpayer is taxed and money comes to the Federal Government and money is given to a producer. There are no payments to producers. There are no subsidies. That is the second point. There are forces that have wanted to abolish the sugar program for some long while. The sugar program is not a program that gives a payment to a producer. It does create a circumstance of balance between production and imports in order to achieve a domestic price that provides stability for consumers and stability for producers. Some don't like that. Who are they? Well, they call themselves the Coalition for Sugar Reform. Who or what is the Coalition for Sugar Reform? Anyone can guess that. The American Bakers Association, the National Confectioners Association, the Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers Association, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the Independent Bakers Association. Let's look at these groups. The price of sugar has dropped 30 percent since last summer, to a 22-year low. The price of sugar has dropped by a third. Anyone who listens to me should ask themselves, have I purchased a candy bar lately? If so, did I see a reduction in the cost of the candy bar? Did I buy a can of soda? If so, was it cheaper than it used to be? The answer, clearly, is no. Sugar prices have dropped by 30 percent. Chocolate and candy prices are up by 6 percent. Cookies, cakes, and other bakery products are up by 7 to 8 percent. Cereal and ice cream prices are up by 9 percent. Buy just a bag of sugar at the store and see whether it costs 30 percent less. Let's figure out where sugar comes from. It comes from a family farm in the Red River Valley of North Dakota. This family raises sugar beets. They buy a tractor, they buy other equipment with which to plant the seeds; then they buy fuel, they buy fertilizer, they get up in the mornings and gas up the tractor and go break the ground. They do the things farmers do. They take all the risks. They do all the work. And then they hope. They hope something doesn't happen to the crop. They hope it doesn't get burned out, flooded out, or have disease. If all of those hopes are realized, maybe at the end of the year they get a crop--maybe. After risking all their money and working all year, if they get a crop, then maybe they get a crop that has a price above the cost of production. But maybe not. Some say: It doesn't matter who is producing these things; we really don't care--talking about the organizations, the Coalition for Sugar Reform--we don't care where it comes from; we just want to get the world price for sugar, the dump price for sugar. What is the result of that? The result means devastation of family farms in many parts of this country--those families who are out there trying to earn a living as best they can, whose fortune, whose future is based on events around the globe over which they have no control and whom these organizations would like to link to the world dump price for sugar. They can't make it. They wouldn't make it. We have to ask the question, Is it reasonable for us in this country to decide we want to do a couple of things at once? One, provide stable prices for sugar for the American consumer. We have done that. U.S. retail prices for sugar are virtually unchanged for more than a decade. How many prices exist on the grocery store shelf where we can say that price is largely unchanged for an entire decade? Not very many. Sugar, we can. Why is it we have price stability for consumers? It has not always been that way. We have seen times when the price of sugar has spiked up, up, way up. The sugar program has provided stability of price for the consumer. At the same time, it has tried to provide some basic stability of price for the producer that takes the risk of producing. Some don't like that. They say producers don't matter much here. They do matter. They are part of the economic backbone of this country. They are the salt of the Earth. The folks who are out there trying to make a living on America's family farmers--and yes, I say to those questions, yes, they are family farmers. If you doubt it, come with me and I will take you to a few. We will drive in the yard, see the equipment, talk to the family. These are family farmers producing sugar beets. On another point about how well they do, the cost of production for sugar in this country is well below the cost of production in the world average. In fact, we have the lowest cost of beet sugar producers in the world. Yet they couldn't compete against dumped sugar at dump sugar prices. Should they have to compete in a global economy against dump sugar prices? The answer is no, of course not. We ought to be willing to stand up for this country's producers. I am not at all embarrassed, and I will never be embarrassed, for standing up for the economic interests of America's producers, to say to them, you deserve an opportunity to have a fair return. That is what this program is all about. In my judgment, this amendment ought to be tabled by this Senate. I believe it will be tabled. I have a series of charts, but I think my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and Senator Breaux and Senator Craig and others have used the charts. They show prices. They show what has happened to our producers--a devastating price collapse. Let me make one other parenthetical point. It seems to me, if you are going to start dealing with farm issues, the last thing you would want to do is go to one part of the farm program that historically has worked pretty well. We have had some problems with it in recent months for a number of reasons. Historically, this program has been the one part of the farm program that has worked. It seems to me you would not go to that one and take that apart. Make the rest of them work as well. But I think it is interesting that the same people who are the Coalition for Sugar Reform, they have one common ingredient in the things they produce--grains, oilseed, dairy and sugar. In every circumstance, the return for these commodities to the people who produce them--the people who get up in the morning, do all the work, do the chores, spend the day in the field, harvest the crops, and take all the risks--in every circumstance, we have seen a substantial decline: Wheat, corn, soybean prices less than half what they were 4 years ago; milk prices a little more than half what they were a year ago; sugar prices down by a third. That is not, in my judgment, what this Congress, what this Senate ought to be expecting to have happen for our producers. I hope we will decide today, by an overwhelming margin, to table this amendment. Let me end as I began. I have great respect for the Senator from Arizona and others who may feel the way he does. I do not in any way suggest what he is doing is something he does not believe passionately about. But I believe very strongly this amendment ought to be tabled. This Congress ought to be about the business of strengthening the sugar program and making that sugar program work as it has worked for so many years, not taking it apart. This is not a circumstance where our farmers are competing in free trade. There is not free trade in sugar. It is not a circumstance where farmers are getting a subsidy. There is no subsidy paid to sugar producers. It is a circumstance where this is a program that deserves the support of the Senate this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I was intending to offer the motion to table. I understood the Senator from North Dakota wished to speak. I think, if the Senator from Idaho is offering the motion to table, as long as there is debate time remaining, I support that.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. July 19 Steven Anderson, 38, Tulsa, OK; Eric Cummings, 24, Minneapolis, MN; Linda Dunn, 42, Detroit, MI; Betty Dreyfuss, 79, Daly City, CA; Tomas Hernandez, 27, Houston, TX; William Minis, 28, Dallas, TX; Ivan Powell, 32, Tulsa, OK; Percy Wright, 25, Baltimore, MD.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is nothing worse than losing an argument you are not having. We had four or five opponents talk about this legislation, and they were making arguments about a bill that doesn't exist. So they win. What is the argument? Listen carefully and you will hear the scare tactics, suggesting that somehow in an old garage with a dirt floor on a dusty street somewhere in Haiti, someone is going to produce a counterfeit drug and ship it to the U.S. We should not do that, they say. Well, I agree. But that has nothing to do with this legislation. They are winning an argument we are not having. This legislation establishes very strict controls and pertains only to prescription drugs that are produced in manufacturing plants approved by the FDA, with strict FDA oversight and proof of FDA approval on all imported medicines. Only licensed pharmacists and wholesalers can import the medicine for resale, and there is lab testing to screen out counterfeits. That is what this is about. Risk? This isn't about risk. One of our colleagues said what we need is more insurance coverage for prescription drugs. Well, I agree that we need to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare to help our senior citizens pay for their medications. But we also need lower prices for prescription drugs. There is a famous football coach who is on television just about every night in an advertisement for a drug called Zocor. He is one of America's better professional football coaches and, I gather, a wonderful man. He says that Zocor reduces his cholesterol. I am sure it does; it is a wonderful drug. Zocor is advertised widely on television. If you buy it in the United States it is $3.82 per tablet. If you buy it in Canada-- the same pill by the same company--it is $1.82 per tablet. I ask anybody who spoke today in opposition to this amendment, how does one justify that? Do you support it? Do you think it is right? Do you want to tell the American consumer we have a global economy for everyone except for them? The compounds and chemicals used in this pill can be accessed globally by the companies that produce it, and that is fine. But the global economy isn't for you, American consumers. The drug companies can price their products any way they want here in the United States, and the American consumer has no business accessing them at a lower price anywhere outside the United States. I ask all those who oppose this, do you support this pricing strategy--$1.82 for the person in Winnipeg, Canada, and $3.82 for the U.S. consumer? The Senator from Vermont offers a very simple piece of legislation. The amendment allows for the importation only of products approved for sale in the United States by the FDA and manufactured in FDA-approved plants. At a hearing before the HELP committee earlier this year, Dr. Christopher Rhodes, a professor of applied pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Rhode Island, who has 30 years of experience on the development and evaluation of drug products, said this: It is my considered professional opinion that the process of using re-imported prescription drugs in the United States need not place the American public at any increased risk of ineffective or dangerous products. I understand what is at work here. The pharmaceutical industry wants to protect what they have. They have a pretty good deal. They can price their products at whatever price they want. But this is about fair prices for American consumers. I heard a colleague say: If we don't price products like this in the U.S., there won't be research and development for new drugs. Oh, really? Every European country receives lower prices for the same drugs. Yet a larger percentage of research and development on prescription drugs takes place in Europe than in the United States. Explain that. This is a good piece of legislation. I hope my colleagues will see it for what it is. It doesn't pose any risk. It says to the American consumers that they have rights as well.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes. The sponsor is Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The drug industry obviously wants to keep things as they are. Let me just make one additional point. It is not my intention to have the American people go to another country for their prescription drugs. It is my intention to force the pharmaceutical industry to reprice their drugs here in the United States. If our pharmacists and our drug wholesalers are able to access the same drugs at a much lesser price in Canada or England or elsewhere, and bring them back and sell them at a savings to our consumers, it will force the industry to reprice their drugs in this country. That is my goal. It is not my goal to put people in minivans and send them outside this country to access prescription drugs. I want pressures brought through the global economy to equalize prescription drug prices in this country vis-a-vis what they are being sold at in other countries. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. I have here bottles of 3 different prescription drugs that are ranked among the top 20 in the United States in the number of prescriptions filled and sales volume. All of these drugs, incidentally, are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. I have here the actual bottles for these medicines. This one happens to be Zoloft, which is used to treat depression. The company that produces these pills and puts them in different size bottles then sells them all around the world. It is exactly the same medicine produced by the same company, sold in different places. Buy it, for example, in Emerson, Canada, and you will pay $1.28 for a pill. Buy it 5 miles south of there in Pembina, ND, and you will not pay $1.28 for the same pill. Instead you will pay $2.34. It is the same pill in the same bottle, made by the same company in the same manufacturing plant. The only thing different is the price. The pill costs $1.28 in Canada, and $2.34 for an American consumer. Or what about Zocor? Zocor is a very popular prescription drug. Pick up any Newsweek or Time magazine and see the multipage ads for this drug. I have here two bottles of Zocor made by the same company, with the identical manufacturing process. One bottle is sent to Canada where it costs $1.82 per tablet; the other is sent to a U.S. consumer who is charged $3.82: $1.82 for someone living in Winnipeg, $3.82 for someone living in Montpelier. Norvasc is a prescription drug that is used to lower blood pressure. The bottles are almost identical--again, both bottles are by the same manufacturer, and contain the same pill. Norvasc costs the Canadian consumer 90 cents. It costs the U.S. consumer $1.25 per pill. Or to look at this price disparity another way, the cost of a 1-month supply of Zocor--the same pill, by the same company, in the same bottle--is $54 when it is sent to a Canadian. When it is sent to an American, it costs $114. Or Zoloft--again the same pill, by the same company, made in the same manufacturing plant--costs the Canadian $38 for a 1-month supply; the American pays $70. Norvasc costs Canadians $27 for a one month supply and the same quantity costs Americans $37. I can show you medicine where the price inequity is 10 to 1. The question our constituents in the States of Vermont, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Washington ask is: How can this be justified? This is the same product. If this is a global economy, why must I go to Canada to try to buy a prescription drug that was manufactured in the United States in the first place in order to buy it for half the price? That is what Americans all across this country are asking. The companies that produce these medicines are able to access all of the ingredients they need to produce prescription drugs from all around the world in order to get the lowest prices. If the pharmaceutical manufacturers are able to benefit from the global economy, why then can the consumer not also access that same drug made in a plant approved by the FDA when it is being sold in Winnipeg for half the price? What is the answer to that? Many of us believe American consumers should be able to also benefit from the global economy. My colleague from the State of Washington, Mr. Gorton, has sponsored his own legislation to address this issue and he is also a cosponsor of this amendment. All of us have to respond to our constituents. This is not just a Canada-United States issue. Americans pay higher prices than anywhere else in the world. How much more do we pay? If Americans pay an average of $1 for a pharmaceutical product, that same product has a much lower average cost in every other industrialized nation. We pay $1; the Canadians pay 64 cents. We pay $1; the English pay 65 cents. We pay $1; the Swedes pay 68 cents. We pay $1; the Italians pay 51 cents. We are charged the highest prices for prescription drugs of any country in the world. The American people ask the question: Why? Senior citizens are 12 percent of our population, but they consume one-third of the prescription drugs in America. I come from a State with a lot of senior citizens. They have reached the years of their lives where, in most cases, they are no longer working and are living on a fixed income. Last year, they saw, as all Americans did, prescription drug spending in this country go up 16 percent in 1 year. Part of that is price inflation, part is driven by increased utilization. Nonetheless, older Americans saw a 16-percent increase in prescription drug spending in this country in 1 year. Those of us who have held hearings on this issue and who have heard from senior citizens know what they say. They tell us they are forced to go to the back of the grocery store first, where the pharmacy is, to buy their prescription medicines because only then will they know how much money they have left to pay for food. Only then will they know whether they are going to get to eat after they have purchased their prescription drugs. This is an issue for all Americans, not just senior citizens, but it is an especially acute problem for senior citizens. In January on one cold, snowy day, I traveled with a group of North Dakota senior citizens to Emerson, Canada. First we visited the doctor's office--because it is required in Canada--where the North Dakotans who wanted to buy prescription drugs in the Canadian pharmacy showed the doctor their prescription from a U.S. doctor, and the Canadian doctor wrote a prescription for them. Then we went to a very small, one-room pharmacy just off the main street of Emerson, Canada, a tiny little town of not more than 300 or 400 people. Emerson is 5 miles north of the North Dakota border. I stood in that pharmacy and I watched the North Dakota senior citizens purchase their prescription drugs, and I saw how much money they were saving on the prescription drugs they were buying. As is often the case, senior citizens will take 2, 3, 4, or 8 different prescription drugs. It is not at all unusual to see that. I watched these North Dakotans compare what they were paying in the United States to what they were paying at this little one-room pharmacy in Emerson, Canada. It was staggering. They asked me the question: Why do we have to come to Canada to do this? Why can't our pharmacists come up here and access this same supply of drugs and pass the savings along to us? The answer is that there is a Federal law in this country that says that only the manufacturer can import prescription drugs into the United States. The amendment we are considering, offered by the Senator from Vermont, proposes to change that. He does not propose to do so in any way that would jeopardize the safety of medicines that are available in this country. He does not propose to in any way suggest that we should not maintain the chain of custody needed to assure a safe supply of prescription drugs. But he does propose that we amend that law and replace it with a system that assures the safety of the medicine supply, while allowing pharmacists and drug wholesalers to go to Canada and go to other countries and access that same prescription drug, provided that it was produced in a plant that was approved by the FDA. This amendment assures not only the safety of the manufacturing process but also the chain of custody of the supply. In this way we will allow U.S. consumers the full flow and benefit of the global economy. Why can't American pharmacists and drug wholesalers shop globally for prescription drugs, provided it is the same pill, put in the same bottle, manufactured by the same company in a plant that is approved by the FDA? The answer is that they ought to be able to do that. There is no excuse any longer for preventing them from doing that. Zocor, Prilosec, Zoloft, Vasotec, Norvasc, Cardizem--you can go right on down the list of the medicines most frequently used by senior citizens and compare what they cost here with what they cost in Canada and Mexico. Then ask the question: Why? Why are we in America charged so much more for the identical prescription drug? The answer is simple: It is because the big drug companies can do it here. The pharmaceutical industry charges what the market will bear in the United States. The U.S. consumers are prevented from being a global consumer. Let me say this about the pharmaceutical industry. I want them to do well. I support them on a range of things. I want them to be profitable, and I want them to be able to do substantial research. I do not wish them ill. I applaud them and thank them for the research they do to create lifesaving, miracle drugs. They only do part of the research, of course. A substantial part is also done through the National Institutes of Health, through publicly funded research. And we are dramatically increasing our investment in NIH. But some will say to the Senator from Vermont: What you are doing will dramatically reduce research and development by the drug companies. These prices are what support research and development. Hogwash. Nonsense. The fact is, a larger percentage of the research and development is done by the drug companies in Europe than is done in the United States. Let me say that again. More research and development is done in Europe than in the United States. And that comes from the pharmaceutical industry's own figures. Take a look at the billions and billions of dollars the drug industry spends on promotion and compare that to what they spend on research and development. In fact, if you pick up a weekly magazine, such as Newsweek, you will see the multipage ads for prescription medicine. They are spending billions of dollars on direct-to-consumer advertising. They are going directly to the consumer and saying: We want you to go to your doctor to demand that he or she write a prescription for this medication for you. That just started a few years ago. It is now rampant. Doctors will tell you that patients come to their offices, saying: I read about this medicine in an ad in Newsweek. I want you to prescribe that. That is what is happening. Billions of dollars are spent to try to induce consumers to demand medicine that can only be given to them by a doctor who believes it is necessary. While all of this is going on, the Senator from Vermont offers a piece of legislation that I fully support. If I were writing the legislation offered by the Senator from Vermont, I would prefer that it not leave out the provision that allows personal use importation. I hope at some point we can allow for that. But I just say this. I know that literally $60 or $70 million has been spent by the pharmaceutical industry because it is scared stiff that we are going to pass this legislation. In fact, in the Washington Post the pharmaceutical industry has been running a full-page ad for the last several days. I do not know what a full-page ad costs in the Washington Post, but I know it is not cheap. How many citizens, who support our bill, have the ability to go to the Washington Post and buy a full-page ad? This full-page ad is just totally bogus. It says: One of these pills is a counterfeit. Can you guess which one? Congress is about to permit wholesale importation of drugs from Mexico and Canada. The personal health of American consumers is unquestionably at risk. Counterfeit prescription drugs will inevitably make their way across our borders and into our medicine cabinets. Counterfeit prescription drugs can kill. Counterfeit prescription drugs have killed. This is from the pharmaceutical industry, which wants to scare people into believing the legislation that we are now debating is somehow bad for our country's consumers. That is totally bogus. We are proposing an amendment that assures the safety of the drug supply but finally assures the American consumer that they can access drugs that are priced reasonably. If someone in another country is paying half the price or a third or a tenth of the price being charged the American consumer for the same drug that is produced in a manufacturing plant approved by the FDA, why can't the American consumer have access to those drugs in a global economy? The answer is: They ought to be able to do it.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the legislation offered by the Senator from Vermont. But before I speak on that let me just mention to the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Wisconsin who have brought this bill to the floor, I am a member of their subcommittee on appropriations. I certainly respect the work they have done. They do an outstanding job, they and their staffs, putting together the Agriculture appropriations bill. It is not an easy bill to construct and to bring to the floor. One amendment that I will offer at a later time will deal with the disaster now facing farmers who have flooded lands and especially those farmers whose crops are burning up day after day in the deep South. Last Friday morning, as we were taking a series of votes, I talked with Senator Coverdell. He and I were prepared to offer an amendment to assist farmers dealing with flooded lands in my part of the country and drought-stricken lands in Georgia. Georgia is the hardest hit State with drought problems, and family farmers there are suffering substantially. Senator Coverdell intended to join me in offering an amendment offering them some emergency assistance. I will want to address this issue on this legislation. I will certainly talk with the chairman and the ranking member to do so in a way that relates to the needs of the Senate, but especially in a way that meets the needs of those family farmers who, through no fault of theirs but through natural disasters, have seen their crops disappear and are suffering some very significant problems. I will save further discussion of this problem for a later time in this debate. With regard to the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, I strongly support this amendment. Several bills have been introduced in Congress on this subject. I introduced a piece of similar legislation along with Senator Wellstone and Senator Snowe. I am also pleased to join as a cosponsor of the legislation authored by the Senator from Vermont. All of these bills relate to the same issue. That issue is very important and one we should address. The reason it is being addressed here and now is that the House of Representatives has already addressed it on its Agriculture appropriations bill, and it is important that the Senate also weigh in on this issue. The Senator from Vermont certainly has a right, and is protected with respect to germaneness, to offer this amendment to this bill. Let me describe the issue before us in terms that people can better understand, using a couple of different medicines as examples. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use these medicine bottles in my presentation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I join my many colleagues here in the Senate today expressing my sympathies to the Coverdell family and telling them our thoughts and prayers are with them during this difficult time. A poet once said: There is no joy life gives like that it takes away. I expect the Coverdell family and all who loved Paul and understand the hurt and anguish at his passing, today know well what that verse means. This is an unusual place, this Senate. There are 100 of us, men and women from all parts of the country. We have days where we have pretty aggressive debates and fights about public policy. Paul Coverdell was in the middle of many of those. I never heard Paul Coverdell say a mean word to anyone in the Senate. I told him one day at the end of a rather lengthy debate in which I was on the other side and the vote was called and we were standing in the well: You and I don't agree on this issue, but you are a very good Senator. We served in different political parties. We, in many cases, believed differently about issues. But Paul Coverdell was a very good Senator and served this country well. The important part about Paul was, though he felt great passion about public policy and the issues he brought to the floor of the Senate, again, he never uttered a mean word about anyone in debate. You can always disagree in this country without being disagreeable. Paul Coverdell demonstrated that every day in his pursuit of the public policy he believed was important for this country. We are so busy and our schedules have us on our way here and there and everywhere all week, and then often to our respective homes in the 50 States on weekends, so it is hard to get to know each other very well. But each day, as we move around in this Capitol, all of us in the Senate exchange greetings and words, occasionally a story or two. Last week, I was in the elevator with Senator Coverdell. We laughed a bit about his being compared, from time to time, in his presentation, to George Bush. I always used to kid him about that, that sometimes he had a cadence that reminded me of the ex-President. He sort of kidded me and said someone told him he was doing Dana Carvey who was doing George Bush, so he was two steps away from the impression. We laughed about that. Last Friday, as we were having a long series of votes, towards the end of the votes I visited with Senator Coverdell because Georgia has been a State hardest hit by drought. I told him we had been hit so severely with respect to floods. On behalf of our farmers, I was trying to see if we could put together a piece of legislation that would deal with crops that had been flooded out, destroyed by flood, and crops in Georgia and elsewhere that were being destroyed by drought. On Friday morning, Paul indicated he wanted to join me in an amendment to this bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill that is being considered in the Senate, to provide some assistance for family farmers who were victims of the drought that was occurring in his State and throughout the South. He was always available to talk about public policy and what was happening; always especially available and concerned to talk about the people of his State of Georgia. I wanted to come today to say the Senate will miss Paul Coverdell. He was not only a good Senator, but he served this country very well. He was a friend to all of us. My thoughts and prayers go to his wife and his family. We say thank you to his memory. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the bill to authorize the Williston Water Transmission Line. Williston is a small town of 13,000 located in the Northwest corner of North Dakota about twenty miles East of the Montana state line. Williston is located along the Missouri River not far from where the Fort Union Trading Post existed from 1828-1867. Today the fur trading post is a tourist attraction, and agriculture and oil productions are the main industries in the Williston area. Mr. President, prior to construction of the existing Williston Water Treatment Plant, Williston obtained water to meet its municipal needs from the Missouri River. With the construction of the Garrison Dam and the creation of Lake Sakakawea in 1954, Williston is in the delta area of Lake Sakakawea and had to relocate its water intake and water treatment plant approximately five miles upstream to its present location. The Corps and Williston funded the construction of a large diameter transmission line to convey the entire water supply from the water treatment plant to the city of Williston. All of the water treated by the water treatment plant must flow through this single existing transmission line to reach Williston. In the 1970's and early 80's, siltation covered the existing intake valves for the city's water supply, requiring the construction of two new intake valves. The lake is currently silting twice as fast as the original Corps estimate. Mr. President, in the spring of 1998, a leak in the transmission line caused by the saturated soil forced the city to forgo any supply of water for five and a half days. The lack of accessibility, unstable soil conditions and high ground water along the route make the line's reliability a significant concern. Williston must now construct a new water transmission line on higher ground. This bill will authorize the construction of a new water transmission line to Williston. Because the old line has been damaged by the construction of the Garrison Dam, this authorization is appropriate and essential. Mr. President, I would like to commend the residents of Williston who have worked so hard for so long to resolve this problem. They have been tireless in their efforts to fix this problem--a problem caused by the Federal government. Mr. President, I join with Senator Conrad and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure the citizens of Williston have a reliable water transmission line.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 8 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while some Members of the Senate are conversing about the schedule, I want to take a moment and comment today on a couple of items that have appeared in today's newspapers related to a very important matter that we will be addressing soon. The first item appeared in the Wall Street Journal: ``Drug benefit costs for large employers are expected to jump 22.5 percent for employees and 23.4 percent for retirees over the next year,'' according to a survey of 61 companies. Drug costs are expected to jump 22.5 percent in a single year for employees and employers. The second item is a full-page ad that appeared in the Washington Post today. This ad is sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. It says: One of these pills is a counterfeit. Can you guess which one? And then it says: Congress is about to permit the wholesale importation of drugs from Mexico and Canada. The personal health of American consumers is unquestionably at risk. Counterfeit prescription drugs will inevitably make their way across our borders and into our medicine cabinets. Counterfeit prescription drugs can kill. Counterfeit drugs have killed. This is from the big pharmaceutical manufacturers. What they are alleging is that it would be unsafe to allow those in this country who want to go to Canada to access a supply of prescription drugs from a drugstore in Winnipeg that was originally made in the United States, in a plant inspected by the Food and Drug Administration, and then put in a bottle and sent to a pharmacy in Canada. It would not be unsafe. It would be cheaper, but not unsafe. Here is the issue. This is a global economy, we are told, and the pharmaceutical industry certainly benefits from that global economy. They buy their chemicals all around the world to get the best prices, and they should. They use these chemicals to produce wonderful, life- saving medicines. Then they ship that medicine all around the world. They ship it to Pembina, ND, and to Emerson, Manitoba in Canada. Those two communities are about 5 miles apart. For the same medicine, produced in the same manufacturing plant by the same company, in the same dosage strength, put in the same bottle, the manufacturers will charge the U.S. consumer triple, double, or quadruple the price charged the Canadian consumer. The question is this: Why should an American citizen have to go to Canada to buy a drug that was produced in the United States in order to find that they will save 50 to 70 percent on the price of that same drug? The answer is that they should not have to go to Canada to do that. There ought to be fairer pricing of prescription drugs in this country. There is a little sweetheart law on the books in this country that needs to be amended. This law says that the only entity that can re- import prescription drugs into the United States is its manufacturer. So when a pharmaceutical manufacturer makes a drug in the United States and ships it to Canada for sale at a fraction of the price--and that is because Canada won't allow them to sell it at the price at which they sell it in the United States--they are able to say to pharmacists and drug wholesalers in the United States that they can't go to Canada and buy it and bring it back and pass the savings along to their customers. Even though it is the same drug, made in a plant in the United States, and the plant is approved by the FDA, they can't bring it back from Canada. Why? Because a law in this country prevents that. Talk about a sweetheart deal. Some of us want to amend that law. Some Republicans and Democrats have come together on legislation to allow pharmacists and drug wholesalers to import FDA-approved medicines. So in response, the pharmaceutical industry spent a fortune putting full-page ads in newspapers today, saying this is about ``counterfeit medicine'' that will kill people. What a sack of lies. There is no counterfeit medicine problem here. We are talking about the importation of prescription drugs in this country only in instances where the chain of custody has been assured and guaranteed. This is the most profitable industry in the world, and I understand that it wants to protect its profits. I think the drug companies do a lot of wonderful things. But I don't think it is wonderful when they tell senior citizens in this country--all citizens, for that matter, but especially senior citizens--we have a life-saving drug, but you will pay double the price of what we charge anywhere else in the world. That is not fair. But it happens all the time. What we ought to do is decide that if this is a global economy, it is a global economy for senior citizens and for pharmacists, as long as we assure the chain of custody and resolve the issue of safety. A pharmacist in Grand Forks, ND, cannot go to Winnipeg, Canada, to buy the same pill, in the same bottle, made in the same manufacturing plant, and bring it back and pass the savings along to senior citizens. Senior citizens are 12 percent of our population, yet they use one- third of all the prescription drugs in this country. They have reached their retirement years, the years in which their incomes are limited, and they discover that they must pay the highest prices for prescription drugs of any group of consumers in the world. That is not fair. Miracle drugs only perform miracles if you can afford to take them. Life-saving drugs only save lives if you can afford to access those drugs. I have had hearings all across this country, and I have heard identical testimony in every State. Senior citizens tell me: When I go to the grocery store, I must first go to the pharmacy at the back of the store to buy my prescription drugs because only then will I know how much money I have left to pay for food. Only then will I know how much money I have left with which to eat. That is happening all across this country. The folks in the pharmaceutical industry want to continue to charge U.S. consumers double, triple, or quadruple the prices they impose upon citizens of other countries. That is not fair. We ought to change it. In the appropriations bill when it was considered by the House, the House enacted two amendments to essentially prevent the FDA from enforcing the current law. In the Senate, there will be an amendment offered by one of my Republican colleagues, myself, and others. The Senate amendment would also allow pharmacists and drug wholesalers to import prescription drugs that were produced in the United States, in plants that are approved by the FDA, but it includes provisions to ensure this is done in a safe manner. We hope enough Members of the Senate will agree so that we will be able to get this done in the coming days. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I, too, would like to join my distinguished colleague from West Virginia in addressing the Clean Coal Technology program. I would also like to commend the Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and of course the Ranking Member, Senator Byrd for their work relating to the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration program. Mr. President, I share the optimism of the leaders of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee with respects to the innovations that could be made with further clean coal technology projects. I specifically want to draw attention to one area in which I think that there is great potential--lignite energy development. In my state of North Dakota, the lignite industry provides a low-cost, reliable energy source for more than 2 million people in the upper Midwest. This industry directly employs 3,000 people in North Dakota and has great potential to increase the efficiency of coal-fired power plants while reducing the emissions with the application of new coal technologies. Mr. President, because of the importance of lignite coal, I would urge the Department of Energy to specifically explore the development of low-rank coals, coals containing high-sodium, and mine-mouth applications and concepts in any new round of Clean Coal Technology projects. I also believe, and I would hope the Department would agree, too, that preference should be given to those states that have lignite research and development programs requiring public and private collaboration. This kind of work should be aspects of the study that the Committee report requires of the Department.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. July 14, 1999: Robert Clayton, San Francisco, CA; River P. Graham, 39, Oklahoma City, OK; Lonzie Harper, Detroit, MI; Angelo Rhodes, 20, Philadelphia, PA; Torris Starks, Detroit, MI; Terrance Wilkins, 28, Nashville, TN; Nathan A. Williams, 26, Oklahoma City, OK; and an unidentified male, 27, Charlotte, NC.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I wanted to ask the Senator from Kansas about the bill currently before the Senate, H.R. 4391, the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act, which passed the House unanimously on Tuesday. Is this bill similar to S. 1755, the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act, legislation that the Senator and I introduced last year that is currently on the Senate calendar?

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, when I entered the Chamber a few moments ago, one of our colleagues was speaking, and he, as I best understood it, came out in favor of love, in favor of marriage, and in opposition to taxing death. And I thought to myself, that is an interesting bit of debate. But one has to look at the public policies being espoused by those who are describing those positions to understand exactly how much they favor love and marriage and exactly how much they want to do with respect to our public laws and our Tax Code dealing with the taxing of death. So I thought maybe I could just, for a couple minutes, comment on that. And then I want to talk about the various tax penalties and about an amendment that I am going to offer today. In the Wall Street Journal of today, there is an op-ed piece written by Mr. George Soros, one of the more noted American financiers. He is chairman of the Soros Fund Management. I have no idea what Mr. Soros is worth, but suffice it to say that Mr. Soros is one of the more successful American entrepreneurs and financial gurus. He has made a substantial amount of money, and has been known as a very successful businessman. Here is what he writes in the Wall Street Journal of today. Mr. George Soros writes: Supporters of repealing the estate tax say the legislation would save family farms and businesses and lift a terrible and unfair burden. I happen to be fortunate enough to be eligible for the tax benefits of this legislation, and so I wish I could convince myself to believe the proponents' rhetoric. Unfortunately, it just isn't so. The truth is that repealing the estate tax would give a huge tax windfall to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. It would provide an average tax cut of more than $7 million to taxpayers who inherit estates worth more than $10 million. His last paragraph, in an op-ed piece I would commend to those who might want to get the Wall Street Journal today: So I say to the Republican leaders of Congress, thanks for thinking of me--but no thanks. Please keep the estate tax in place, and use the proceeds where it will really count: to better the lives not of people who have already realized the American dream but of people still seeking to achieve it. That is from George Soros. As you know, there was not a disagreement about whether to repeal the estate tax in a way that would protect the passage of family farms and small businesses from parents to children. There was no debate about that. We proposed a piece of legislation that would have provided up to $8 million of value in a family farm or a small business--neither of which, incidentally, would be very small if they reached that $8 million mark--but they could be passed without one penny of estate tax from parents to children. We proposed repealing the estate tax on the transfer of almost all small businesses and family farms in this country. That is what we proposed. The other side said: No, that is not enough. What we want you to do is repeal the estate tax for the largest estates in America, those worth hundreds of millions of dollars, those worth billions of dollars. They said: No, we want to provide the 400 wealthiest families in America, according to Forbes magazine, up to $250 billion in tax cuts, by removing the estate tax on the wealthiest estates in America. Now comes one of America's preeminent financiers, who has made a fair amount of that money, saying: Thanks, but no thanks. That would not be a fair way to do it. I think it is important, not only as we talk about the repeal of the estate tax, which we just had a significant debate on, and now talking about the marriage tax penalty and trying to provide some relief there, to talk about who is going to benefit from these proposals. Who will benefit? Repealing the estate tax on the largest estates in this country--a country in which our economy has done so well and so many Americans have done so well; a country in which one-half of the world's billionaires live--repealing the estate tax burden on the largest estates worth hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, is obviously a tax break for the very wealthiest Americans. Instead of using the money for that kind of tax relief, what about some tax relief for the people who go to work every day and pay a payroll tax on minimum income? What about the folks who could use a middle-income tax cut by perhaps having a tax credit for the tuition they are paying to send their kids to college? Or perhaps what about using that money to reduce the Federal debt? What about using that money to put a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program? There are a whole series of alternatives one might consider in evaluating how we might want to use this money. I come down in favor of using some of it to reduce the Federal debt. What greater gift to America's children than to reduce our Federal debt during good times. If, during tough times, we run up the Federal debt because we must, then during good times let's pay down the Federal debt. That should be a priority use of funds that are available. We had a debate this week about the estate tax. The majority party said: We demand that the estate tax be repealed in its entirety. We said: No, what we think we should do is repeal the estate tax for a modest amount of income, accumulation of income over the lifetime of a family, and we proposed up to $4 million. That is more than modest and more than most families will ever see. We proposed an $8 million exemption for the passage of a small business and a family farm. The majority party said: That is not enough. We insist on more relief. We insist on relief for the biggest estates in America. That is where we disagreed. That is why at the end of this we have a bill that passed the Senate that will certainly be vetoed by the President, and the veto will certainly be sustained by the Senate. Now the question is the marriage tax penalty. There is no disagreement in this Chamber about the marriage tax penalty. We should eliminate it. Let me give an example of what is done with the marriage tax penalty. This is very simple, but it illustrates the problem. A husband and wife making $35,000 each have a combined income of $70,000. In the present circumstance, if they filed as single taxpayers and they were unmarried, they would pay about $8,407 combined in income taxes. But because they are married and file a joint return, they pay $9,532. Therefore, because they are married, these two individuals pay about $1,125 more in taxes. That is called the marriage penalty. We should eliminate that, of course. Let's do that. The majority party has offered a piece of legislation that in this circumstance would give $443 worth of relief. The couple had a $1,125 penalty, and they only give $443 in relief. We have offered a proposal that says let's eliminate the marriage tax penalty simply, effectively, and completely. How would we do that? We would say to these people: File your income return as you choose, as married filing jointly or as individuals. You choose. You can file separately or jointly. It will eliminate all of the marriage tax penalty. That is what we propose. If I might use one additional chart that shows the difference, we allow all married couples to file separately or jointly. They make the decision. They can make the decision that would abolish any marriage tax penalty that exists in their circumstance. That is not true of the plan offered by the majority. If we eliminate all marriage penalty taxes for taxpayers earning $100,000 or less, if we reduce all penalties from $100,000 to $150,000; why don't we do it all the way up to people who are making $10 million or $20 million? The reason is this distribution chart. As is the case with the estate tax repeal and now with the marriage tax penalty, most of the benefit of this proposal will go to a very small percent of the taxpayers. Nearly 80 percent of the benefit of the majority party's proposal to reduce the marriage tax penalty will accrue to the top 20 percent of taxpayers, and the bottom 80 percent of the taxpayers will get less than one-fourth of the benefit. That is the problem, once again. I think there is substantial agreement in this Chamber about goals. If our goal is to eliminate the estate tax for the passage of small businesses and family farms, let's do that. We can do that together. We have proposed that. Join us. Don't continue to insist that we eliminate the estates tax for the largest estates in the country. There is a better use for those revenues. If the proposition is, let's eliminate the marriage tax penalty, we say fine. Join us. Do it the simple way. Allow people to file either as individuals, separately, or as married couples filing jointly. Their choice. That will eliminate all of the marriage tax penalty. The majority plan only eliminates about three categories of marriage tax penalty when, in fact, there are more than 60. We say, on these issues, while we philosophically agree on part of them, let's join together and do this. Of course, what we have discovered is there are some who would much prefer to have a political issue than to have legislation passed. The result is, they want to send it to the White House and have the President veto it. We could have had at the end of this week a very substantial exemption of the estate tax so that almost no small business or family farm would ever have been ensnared in the web of the estate tax. Why aren't we doing that? Because the majority party insisted on passing a complete repeal of the estate tax which was going to cost a substantial amount of money in a manner that would give the largest estates the biggest tax benefit. That is not fair and not the right thing to do. I hope as we finish this reconciliation bill and move to other appropriations bills and also deal now in July, and especially September and October, with a range of these issues, that we find a way to pass legislation that represents the best of what both political parties have to offer. Instead of getting the best of both, we often get the worst of each because there is so much energy fighting each other's proposals that we forget that there is philosophical agreement. Yes, there is a marriage tax penalty. Yes, we ought to take action to remove it and eliminate it. There is no reason at all that we couldn't do it together. There is more common interest here than most people think. I hope in the coming weeks we can find ways that we can bridge the gap across the political aisle in the Senate and send the President some good legislation. Amendment No. 3877