Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from Pennsylvania as I was coming through the Chamber. I want to propound a question. I do not think there is much disagreement in this Chamber as to whether anybody ought to put their mitts on the Social Security funds. Those are dedicated taxes that go into a trust fund and should only be used for Social Security. I must say, several years ago, we had an incredible debate in this Chamber on amending the Constitution. It was the case that those who wanted to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget were saying, put in the Constitution a provision that puts the Social Security funds, along with all other operating revenues of the Federal Government, into the same pot. Many of us were very upset about that and stood on the floor day after day saying that was the wrong thing to do; you ought not put them in the same pot.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just propound a question. But before I do, let me state to the Senator from Vermont that I am a cosponsor of what he is trying to do. I think what he is trying to do is very important. I regret that we found this parliamentary situation that created a point of order. I don't quite know how one gets out of this at this point. I regret that the Senator felt that he had to withdraw the amendment, but I think what he and I and others are trying to do makes a lot of sense in terms of investment for this country and investment in the future with alternative energy resources. It is very important, especially because some of the programs show such great promise for our country's future. I regret that we are not able to proceed with his amendment. I think the offset is appropriate. I think the amendment would advance this country's energy interests. I know because of the press of time that folks want to move forward. I will not say more except to say that I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Vermont on this. I hope this is not the end of it. I hope that perhaps by this process by committees in the Senate and in the House we can find a way to do what the Senator and I and so many others want to do.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, because we were in a quorum call, I wanted to point out to my colleagues that a group of us, just moments ago, held a press conference discussing the issue----

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask consent to be recognized for 15 minutes. Senator Wellstone is coming over to take part of that, following the presentation by Senator Boxer.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicolas Benjamin be granted floor privileges.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just make a comment to the Senator from Minnesota, all of us have the experience of going around our States and talking to especially senior citizens, who take a substantial amount of prescription drugs--many of them wonderful, lifesaving drugs but at a substantial cost. Many of them have no health insurance coverage for these costs. Let me say at the outset, lest anyone think I don't appreciate what goes on, that the research done at the Federal level and the research done by the pharmaceutical companies have produced lifesaving, remarkable medicines. I commend all of those folks for that, including these companies. I am only debating the price issue here. I ran into a woman one day. She was in her eighties. She had heart disease, diabetes, and was living on somewhere around $400 a month of total income. She said to me: Mr. Senator, I can't afford to take the drugs the doctor says I must take for my heart difficulties and for my diabetes. What I do is buy the drugs, and then I cut the pills in half and take half of the dose so it lasts twice as long. It is the only way. Even then I can hardly afford to pay for food. That is what the problem is here. The problem is that these pharmaceutical drugs are overpriced relative to what every other consumer in the rest of the world is paying for them. I am talking of other consumers in France, in Germany, Italy, England, Canada, and Mexico--you name it. That doesn't make any sense to me. Why should our senior citizens--all consumers for that matter--be paying 300-percent more for the same drug in virtually the same bottle produced by the same company inspected by the FDA than a consumer 20 miles north in Canada is paying? I just came from a meeting near the border of North Dakota and Canada. I was talking to people, again, about that disparity. The Senator from Minnesota has exactly the same situation. The pharmacists at the corner drugstore are saying: Why can't I go up there and buy some of these medications? I know that it is the same pill which comes from the same plant. The reason is the law prevents him from bringing it back, and we want to change that.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me go for another minute, and then I will yield to my colleague from Minnesota, who will have 7 minutes remaining on the 15 minutes. As I have indicated, Senator Johnson from South Dakota and Senator Snowe from Maine are also cosponsors. We expect other cosponsors to join us. Frankly, the reason we have introduced this legislation is that there is an unfair pricing practice that exists with respect to prescription drugs in this country. It is fundamentally unfair for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to say that we will produce a drug, and, by the way, when we decide to sell it we will sell it all around the world, but we will choose to sell it to the American consumer at a much higher price than any other customer in the world. That is unfair to the American consumer. What prevents the local corner pharmacist from going elsewhere to buy these prescription drugs in France or in Canada or elsewhere? A law that says you can't import a drug into this country unless it is imported by the manufacturer. What a ridiculous piece of legislation that was passed over a decade ago. If this global economy works, let's make it work for the consumers and not just for the big companies. Our legislation only pertains to this circumstance: If the drug has been approved by the FDA and the facility where that drug is bought are inspected by the FDA, then those drugs have a right to come into this country not just by the manufacturer but by local pharmacists and distributors who want to access that drug at a less expensive price in other parts of the world and pass along the savings to American consumers. That makes good sense to me. I have a lot more to say, but I will say it at a later time. I yield my remaining time to my colleague, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, who is joined by Senator Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Snowe of Maine as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a piece of legislation on behalf of myself, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Johnson. These three Senators, and I hope others as well, have joined me in introducing this bill, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, today. This piece of legislation deals with the question of prescription drugs. By consent of the Chair, I would like to show on the floor of the Senate today examples of the issue that is addressed by this piece of legislation. With your consent, I will show two bottles of the drug Claritin, a medication most people are familiar with. Claritin is a popular anti- allergy drug. These two bottles contain the same pills, produced by the same company, in the same strength, in the same quantity. One difference: a big difference in price. This bottle is purchased in the United States--in North Dakota, to be exact. This bottle of 10 milligram, 100 tablets cost North Dakotans $218, wholesale price. This bottle--same drug, same company, same strength, same quantity--was purchased in Canada. They didn't pay $218 in Canada; they paid $61. Why the difference for the same drug, same dosage, same quantity, same company? In Canada, it costs $61; U.S. consumers pay $218. Here is another example--and I have a lot of examples. But with the consent of the Chair, I will only use two today. This is Cipro, a prescription drug to treat infections. Both bottles are made by the same company. We have the same number of pills, 500 milligram, 100 tablets--same drug, same company, same pill. In North Dakota, the wholesale price for this bottle is $399; in Canada, it is $171. The North Dakotan pays--or the U.S. consumer pays because this is true all over our country--$399, or 233 percent more than for the same drug in Canada. The question is, Why? The question is, With a global economy, why would a pharmacist simply not drive up to Canada and buy the same drugs and offer them for a lower price to their customers? The answer to that is, there is a law that restricts the importation of drugs into this country, except by the manufacturers of the drug themselves. That is kind of a sweetheart law, it seems to me. We want to change that. If the manufacturer that produces these pills has been inspected by the Food and Drug Administration and the same drugs are marketed everywhere, why on Earth, in a global economy, cannot our consumers access a lesser price? Incidentally, this pricing inequity does not just exist with Canada; it is the same with Mexico, Germany, France, Italy, England, Germany--you name it. It is true around the world. We pay a much higher price for most prescription drugs than consumers anywhere else in the world. The United States is the consumer that pays a much higher price for the same pill, in the same bottle, produced by the same manufacturer. With our bill we say, let's decide that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the pharmaceutical companies can access the raw materials which they use to produce their medicine from all around the world and produce a pill and put it in a bottle, it seems to me that the customer here in the United States ought to also benefit from free trade, as long as the drug is FDA approved and comes from a plant that is inspected by the FDA. The drug industry will say that safety is an issue. It is no issue with respect to my bill. Safety is not an issue here at all. I am saying--and my colleagues are as well--if medicine approved by the FDA and produced in a plant inspected by the FDA is to be marketed around the world, but the American is to pay the highest price--in some cases by multiples of four and five --let us use the global economy to let U.S. pharmacists and prescription drug distributors access that medicine wherever it exists at a lower price, and pass along those savings to American consumers. Back in 1991, the General Accounting Office studied 121 drugs and found that, on average, prescription drugs in the United States are priced 34 percent higher than the exact same products in Canada. I just did a comparison of the retail prices on both sides of the border of 12 of the most prescribed drugs, and discovered that, on average, U.S. prices exceeded the Canadian prices by 205 percent. I mentioned before that Claritin costs the American consumer 358 percent more. We American consumers pay 358 percent more than the consumer does north of the border. And incidentally, the Canadian prices have been adjusted to U.S. dollars. Does this make sense? Of course not. Studies show that the same drug that costs $1 in our country costs 71 cents in Germany, 65 cents in the United Kingdom, 57 cents in France, and 51 cents in Italy. All we are saying is that if this global economy is good for companies that produce the drugs, it ought to be good for the consumer. In 1997, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies had an average profit margin of 28 percent. The Wall Street Journal reported that profit margins in the drug industry are the ``envy of the corporate world.'' The manufacturers produce wonderful medicines, and I am all for it. But I want them at an affordable price for the American consumer. I am flat sick and tired of the American consumer being the consumer of last resort who pays a much higher price than anybody else in the world for the same drug, in the same bottle, produced by the same company. It doesn't make sense. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just make a comment to the Senator from Minnesota, all of us have the experience of going around our States and talking to especially senior citizens, who take a substantial amount of prescription drugs--many of them wonderful, lifesaving drugs but at a substantial cost. Many of them have no health insurance coverage for these costs. Let me say at the outset, lest anyone think I don't appreciate what goes on, that the research done at the Federal level and the research done by the pharmaceutical companies have produced lifesaving, remarkable medicines. I commend all of those folks for that, including these companies. I am only debating the price issue here. I ran into a woman one day. She was in her eighties. She had heart disease, diabetes, and was living on somewhere around $400 a month of total income. She said to me: Mr. Senator, I can't afford to take the drugs the doctor says I must take for my heart difficulties and for my diabetes. What I do is buy the drugs, and then I cut the pills in half and take half of the dose so it lasts twice as long. It is the only way. Even then I can hardly afford to pay for food. That is what the problem is here. The problem is that these pharmaceutical drugs are overpriced relative to what every other consumer in the rest of the world is paying for them. I am talking of other consumers in France, in Germany, Italy, England, Canada, and Mexico--you name it. That doesn't make any sense to me. Why should our senior citizens--all consumers for that matter--be paying 300-percent more for the same drug in virtually the same bottle produced by the same company inspected by the FDA than a consumer 20 miles north in Canada is paying? I just came from a meeting near the border of North Dakota and Canada. I was talking to people, again, about that disparity. The Senator from Minnesota has exactly the same situation. The pharmacists at the corner drugstore are saying: Why can't I go up there and buy some of these medications? I know that it is the same pill which comes from the same plant. The reason is the law prevents him from bringing it back, and we want to change that.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me go for another minute, and then I will yield to my colleague from Minnesota, who will have 7 minutes remaining on the 15 minutes. As I have indicated, Senator Johnson from South Dakota and Senator Snowe from Maine are also cosponsors. We expect other cosponsors to join us. Frankly, the reason we have introduced this legislation is that there is an unfair pricing practice that exists with respect to prescription drugs in this country. It is fundamentally unfair for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to say that we will produce a drug, and, by the way, when we decide to sell it we will sell it all around the world, but we will choose to sell it to the American consumer at a much higher price than any other customer in the world. That is unfair to the American consumer. What prevents the local corner pharmacist from going elsewhere to buy these prescription drugs in France or in Canada or elsewhere? A law that says you can't import a drug into this country unless it is imported by the manufacturer. What a ridiculous piece of legislation that was passed over a decade ago. If this global economy works, let's make it work for the consumers and not just for the big companies. Our legislation only pertains to this circumstance: If the drug has been approved by the FDA and the facility where that drug is bought are inspected by the FDA, then those drugs have a right to come into this country not just by the manufacturer but by local pharmacists and distributors who want to access that drug at a less expensive price in other parts of the world and pass along the savings to American consumers. That makes good sense to me. I have a lot more to say, but I will say it at a later time. I yield my remaining time to my colleague, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, who is joined by Senator Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Snowe of Maine as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a piece of legislation on behalf of myself, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Johnson. These three Senators, and I hope others as well, have joined me in introducing this bill, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, today. This piece of legislation deals with the question of prescription drugs. By consent of the Chair, I would like to show on the floor of the Senate today examples of the issue that is addressed by this piece of legislation. With your consent, I will show two bottles of the drug Claritin, a medication most people are familiar with. Claritin is a popular anti- allergy drug. These two bottles contain the same pills, produced by the same company, in the same strength, in the same quantity. One difference: a big difference in price. This bottle is purchased in the United States--in North Dakota, to be exact. This bottle of 10 milligram, 100 tablets cost North Dakotans $218, wholesale price. This bottle--same drug, same company, same strength, same quantity--was purchased in Canada. They didn't pay $218 in Canada; they paid $61. Why the difference for the same drug, same dosage, same quantity, same company? In Canada, it costs $61; U.S. consumers pay $218. Here is another example--and I have a lot of examples. But with the consent of the Chair, I will only use two today. This is Cipro, a prescription drug to treat infections. Both bottles are made by the same company. We have the same number of pills, 500 milligram, 100 tablets--same drug, same company, same pill. In North Dakota, the wholesale price for this bottle is $399; in Canada, it is $171. The North Dakotan pays--or the U.S. consumer pays because this is true all over our country--$399, or 233 percent more than for the same drug in Canada. The question is, Why? The question is, With a global economy, why would a pharmacist simply not drive up to Canada and buy the same drugs and offer them for a lower price to their customers? The answer to that is, there is a law that restricts the importation of drugs into this country, except by the manufacturers of the drug themselves. That is kind of a sweetheart law, it seems to me. We want to change that. If the manufacturer that produces these pills has been inspected by the Food and Drug Administration and the same drugs are marketed everywhere, why on Earth, in a global economy, cannot our consumers access a lesser price? Incidentally, this pricing inequity does not just exist with Canada; it is the same with Mexico, Germany, France, Italy, England, Germany--you name it. It is true around the world. We pay a much higher price for most prescription drugs than consumers anywhere else in the world. The United States is the consumer that pays a much higher price for the same pill, in the same bottle, produced by the same manufacturer. With our bill we say, let's decide that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the pharmaceutical companies can access the raw materials which they use to produce their medicine from all around the world and produce a pill and put it in a bottle, it seems to me that the customer here in the United States ought to also benefit from free trade, as long as the drug is FDA approved and comes from a plant that is inspected by the FDA. The drug industry will say that safety is an issue. It is no issue with respect to my bill. Safety is not an issue here at all. I am saying--and my colleagues are as well--if medicine approved by the FDA and produced in a plant inspected by the FDA is to be marketed around the world, but the American is to pay the highest price--in some cases by multiples of four and five --let us use the global economy to let U.S. pharmacists and prescription drug distributors access that medicine wherever it exists at a lower price, and pass along those savings to American consumers. Back in 1991, the General Accounting Office studied 121 drugs and found that, on average, prescription drugs in the United States are priced 34 percent higher than the exact same products in Canada. I just did a comparison of the retail prices on both sides of the border of 12 of the most prescribed drugs, and discovered that, on average, U.S. prices exceeded the Canadian prices by 205 percent. I mentioned before that Claritin costs the American consumer 358 percent more. We American consumers pay 358 percent more than the consumer does north of the border. And incidentally, the Canadian prices have been adjusted to U.S. dollars. Does this make sense? Of course not. Studies show that the same drug that costs $1 in our country costs 71 cents in Germany, 65 cents in the United Kingdom, 57 cents in France, and 51 cents in Italy. All we are saying is that if this global economy is good for companies that produce the drugs, it ought to be good for the consumer. In 1997, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies had an average profit margin of 28 percent. The Wall Street Journal reported that profit margins in the drug industry are the ``envy of the corporate world.'' The manufacturers produce wonderful medicines, and I am all for it. But I want them at an affordable price for the American consumer. I am flat sick and tired of the American consumer being the consumer of last resort who pays a much higher price than anybody else in the world for the same drug, in the same bottle, produced by the same company. It doesn't make sense. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am not going to offer an amendment to this bill. In fact, I am a member of the subcommittee and I commend the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for their leadership and work on this legislation. I am pleased to work with them on a range of issues that deal with the defense of this country and with the strengthening of the Armed Forces. I think they do an excellent job. There is one area--and not just on this legislation--of the policy debate in Congress I wanted to mention during the discussion on funding, and that is the area of national missile defense. I do have some concerns about the policy and direction of national missile defense. I wanted to express them now because I think this is the appropriate place. I don't quarrel with the question of research for national missile defense. We have been involved in a robust research program on missile defense. Hopefully, that research, at some point, will bear fruit sufficient that if a threat exists that would persuade us to deploy, we would deploy a national missile defense system that is a workable system and one that provides real and significant protection to our country. Last week--I think perhaps it was a week ago tomorrow--I was driving on a road up in far northeastern North Dakota. I looked to my left and I saw this huge concrete structure. It is, of course, the only antiballistic missile system that was ever built in the free world. It was built in the late 1960s, early 1970s. It was built in Nekoma, ND, up in the northeastern corner of our State. The very month it was declared operational it was also mothballed. Apparently, in today's dollars, somewhere around $20 billion was spent. We still have the massive quantities of concrete poured into a building that looks very much like a modern-day pyramid up in the vast reaches of northeastern North Dakota. That is a legacy, I suppose, to the taxpayers who say sometimes you can have a very expensive program that doesn't turn out quite the way you expected. Some will say, well, that program was just fine; it was a bargaining chip in arms control, and it was mothballed the very month it was declared operational because that was part of the strategic calculation of our country. Of course, that is not the case. I want to talk for a moment about the range of threats against our country. One of those threats is the threat of a terrorist nation, or an adversary, acquiring an intercontinental ballistic missile and affixing to the top of this missile a nuclear warhead and then firing that missile at the United States of America. If that should happen, do we want to have in place a national missile defense system to intercept it? Of course. The answer is yes, of course. What are the likely threats? I mentioned an intercontinental ballistic missile being acquired by a terrorist nation. But, it is far more likely that it would not be an intercontinental ballistic missile but a cruise missile; they are much more widely dispersed, and it would be much more easily acquired. That cruise missile would travel 500 feet above the ground, at 500 or 600 miles an hour, and would be launched from a barge, or a submarine, or a plane just off our shores. That is not going to be intercepted by a national missile defense system. Some say we are working on theater defense that will intercept cruise missiles. Yes, but that theater defense isn't part of what is going to protect the perimeter of our country. It is far more likely that a terrorist nation would acquire a cruise missile. Is there a defense system against a cruise missile? It is far more likely a terrorist nation would, in fact, terrorize our country with a deadly vial of biological or chemical weapons that could cause the kind of chaos that nearly occurred in Japan a couple of years ago, where the right kind of deadly biological agents can kill thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million people. It is far more likely that a major U.S. city would be threatened by a suitcase bomb placed in the trunk of a rusty Yugo car on a New York City dock by a terrorist nation. That is far more likely than them acquiring a sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missile. The potential, for example, of an adversary such as Russia, which has substantial nuclear might, accidentally launching tubes full of missiles from a Russian submarine would not be defeated by the national missile defense system we are talking about because the system being discussed could only potentially defeat a handful of missiles, not an accidental launch of all the tubes of a Russian submarine. Only a handful of missiles could be intercepted by the missile defense system that is currently under discussion. That doesn't suggest that we ought not consider it. But the question I ask is this: Consideration at what price and with what other consequences? First, as we begin to make decisions about a national missile defense system, I don't think we ought to just throw money at the system. I think some who have an appetite for it say we should just keep pouring money in there and somehow a system will emerge that will protect our country. I think that would lead to a great deal of waste. Second, the debate we have about deploying a national missile defense system, as soon as technologically possible or feasible, is a debate that worries me, because it seems to suggest all of the consequences are less important and all of the consequences should be set aside. What are those other consequences? One is a program we now have under way with Russia in which we actually saw the wings off Russian bombers. We actually remove Russian missiles from their silos and remove the warheads from the missile. We are reducing in a dramatic way the number of missiles and bombers and the capabilities of delivering warheads aimed at this country. I have in this desk drawer a little vial which, with the consent of the Presiding Officer, I will show. This little vial of material is wiring that was ground up. It is from a Russian submarine that carried missiles aimed at the United States. That submarine is reduced to small pieces of metal. It is cut up. It doesn't exist anymore. I have some of the wiring right here. How do we acquire the wiring of a Russian ballistic missile submarine? You could shoot it and destroy it. That is one way. Or, the other way is with an agreement between ourselves and the Russians to reduce weapons of mass destruction and the delivery capabilities of each side. We have seen submarines and bombers and nuclear warheads being systematically reduced in a very aggressive way. That is exactly what is happening here. That happens through the Nunn-Lugar funds that are offered in this kind of legislation. It is a very important program. It has been remarkably successful. I do not want to, by what we are doing in other areas, jeopardize that kind of arms reduction and arms control. One other point, Mr. President: It is true that this is an increasingly difficult and dangerous world. North Korea is testing medium-range missiles. Iran is testing medium-range missiles. Pakistan and India do not like each other, and they exploded nuclear weapons right under each other's nose. It is a difficult and dangerous world. I support research on missile defense. But I do not support efforts that would say let us demand deployment of any system as soon as technologically feasible, even if it is at the expense of injuring other efforts to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or to eliminate delivery systems of nuclear weapons under current arms control regimes. Some say the ABM Treaty is for a country that no longer exists, the old Soviet Union; don't worry about it; ignore it. The fact is that we have made significant progress under our arms control agreements. I think we need to be very careful as we proceed down this road not to do one thing at the expense of others that we know will work. I only wanted to say again that the national missile defense program is one that I have provided support for by substantial amounts of research. I do worry sometimes that the amount of money offered is exceeding the amount of money the system is capable of using effectively. It is a difficult technology to hit a bullet with a bullet at intercontinental missile speeds. Some of my colleagues make the point that it is not one program, it is many programs in a seamless transition of dealing with suppression of missile threats in the theater, and also dealing with intercontinental ballistic missile threats. It is true that these programs represent a number of different kinds of programs. But the largest of them is the national missile defense program, commonly referred to as that, which would be deployed to defend against an intercontinental ballistic missile. Representing a State that has housed the only ABM or national missile defense program that was ever built in the Free World, I have some acquaintance with it. It is my hope that when and if this country deploys a system in the future, it not be done at the expense of arms control reductions that exist in other arms control agreements. That we not decide to focus so much on this issue that we do so at the expense of the nonproliferation efforts this country ought to have as job one. We ought to worry very much every day and in every way about efforts to prevent the proliferation and spread of weapons of mass destruction. I think there is a lot of evidence out there about which we need to be very concerned. Frankly, I think it has taken a back seat in recent years. I think it has taken a back seat in Congress and a back seat in the administration. I don't think we have had nearly as much effort as I would feel comfortable with to try to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There are not too many countries that have nuclear weapons at this point, but many countries want to acquire them. There is a black market in the weapons material and production of nuclear weapons. As all of those countries are seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, I hope, as we discuss all of these issues, our country will understand that to prevent proliferation of these weapons, we should not just discuss national missile defense in a way that says it is more important than any other area. If we are to build a safer future for ourselves and our children, it must be a priority for us to say that the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world is a very serious problem that this country ought to pay serious attention to, and it ought to command a substantial amount of our time. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I understand that the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill contains $20 million for innovative readiness training. Under this program, the Department of Defense trains Active Duty, Guard and Reserve personnel by providing ``real world'' experience here in the US which is similar to what might be encountered in Overseas Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Programs. Under the Innovative Readiness Program, the Walking Shield American Indian Society has provided such training opportunities on American Indian reservations especially those located in the states of North and South Dakota and Montana. Without the support and cooperation of the Walking Shield American Indian Society, many of the engineering and medical projects conducted by the Department of Defense would not have been possible. This type of civilian-military program has a very positive impact on recruiting and retention and should be continued in FY 2000. I understand that the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations bill for the Department of Defense notes that the Committee believes that the Department should expand the scope of readiness initiatives to include Native American groups, when appropriate and compatible with mission requirements. Is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Are you familiar with the work of Project Walking Shield and the Walking Shield American Indian Society which conduct health, housing, road construction and other projects suitable for military training on Indian Reservations?

Mr. DORGAN. Would you agree that this group provides the kinds of training opportunities envisioned for the Innovative Readiness Program and it should continue its partnership with the Department and its support and cooperation in Fiscal Year 2000?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to talk for a moment about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That is a subject I suppose will glaze over the eyes of many, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I was in my home State of North Dakota last week. The Senate was not in session. We did not have votes. I guess I was in 20 or 25 different communities all across the State, probably at three dozen different events, town meetings and speeches and various things. It will not surprise anyone to learn that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty did not come up. We talked about farm policy. We talked about virtually every other thing. We talked about water policy, we talked about welfare, but at none of the meetings in which we discussed public issues did anyone raise the issue of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I want to raise the question about this treaty because the President of the United States signed this treaty 2\1/2\ years ago and sent it to the Senate for ratification. This Senate did not hold a hearing on it during the 105th Congress, no hearing at all. It is now 6 months into the new Congress, with no hearing. I, with some of my colleagues, am organizing a letter to the appropriate committee and key people on the committee to say we would like to see movement here. If one Senator opposes this country joining the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, then bring it out here and let's have that debate. I cannot conceive of significant opposition to a determination by so many countries in the world that we ought to prevent nuclear testing; we ought to have an agreement that we do not want the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries. In the past year or so we have seen activities that concern me and many of my colleagues a great deal. We know how many countries possess nuclear weapons. Among those countries that are understood to possess nuclear weapons we can now add India and Pakistan, because each of them exploded nuclear weapons under each other's noses. These are two countries that do not like each other a great deal. There are great tensions. In fact, yesterday on the news you would have seen shelling on the border between Pakistan and India. Each of these countries exploded nuclear weapons, apparently just to show the other country they possess nuclear bombs. North Korea is testing medium-range missiles, firing missiles down range. The country of Iran is testing medium-range missiles. Are these things ominous? Of course they are. Terrorist states acquiring delivery mechanisms for long-range missiles and potentially, I assume, to send weapons of mass destruction to other parts of the world; is that an ominous development? You bet it is. We spent a lot of time here in the Senate talking about a national missile defense; if we could just get a national missile defense put in place in this country so if someone shoots a missile at our country we can go up and hit that bullet with a bullet. I guess we have spent $100 billion over the years trying to do that. There is not much talk about the other things that have been far more successful, and that is arms reduction and test ban treaties banning nuclear tests, reducing nuclear weapons. With consent, I hold up here the part that was taken from the wing of a backfire bomber. This is the piece of a wing strut from a backfire bomber which had its wings sawed off at a former Soviet airbase in Priluki, Ukraine. During the cold war, when the Soviet Union was considered our adversary, the only way I could hold up a piece of the wing of one of their bombers was if we had shot the bomber down. So how does it happen I hold up a portion of a wing of a Soviet backfire bomber? That wing was cut off. Why was it cut off? This country helped provide the funds to cut the wings off bombers in the Soviet Union and now Russia and now the Ukraine. Why did they agree to that? Because we have an arms control reduction agreement in which missiles with nuclear warheads aimed at the United States of America that used to be buried in the ground in the Ukraine are now taken out of the ground and dismantled with the warhead still on. I displayed a picture on the floor of the Senate showing where a missile used to rest in a silo in the Ukraine with the warhead aimed at the United States of America. A sunflower field now exists there. No missile, no nuclear bomb--sunflowers. How did that missile get taken out? How did this backfire Soviet bomber wing get chopped off? We have arms reduction agreements with the Soviet Union, the old Soviet Union, and now Russia and the Ukraine, and they are working. We have people here who say: We do not care about those agreements. We want to build a national missile defense system. It doesn't matter what it costs. It doesn't matter whether it will work. We just want to spend the money so we will feel good. One part of what works in arms control, in my judgment, is the Nunn- Lugar funds which we have spent that accomplished this. The second part, in my judgment, is to pass pieces of legislation that we know make sense for this country's future and for the safety of the world. One of those is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This country needs to pass it. This Senate needs to ratify it. That is the way, as a country, we make judgments about it. I want to hold up a chart that shows the support for it. This was polling done in a range of States around the country: Oregon, Nebraska, Utah, Ohio, Kansas, Colorado, Tennessee--support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Look at it. Mr. President, 86 percent in favor to 10 percent in Oregon who believe we should not ratify this treaty. This country signed it; so have many other countries around the world, 152 countries. This country has a responsibility, in my judgment, to provide leadership, and leadership will mean this Senate ought to ratify it. In order to do that, we must get this treaty out of the committee and get it to the floor and have a debate on it. I urge my colleagues who feel strongly about this to join me and say to the committee it is time, long past the time, when this Senate should ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I will, in coming days, speak again on the floor on this issue and the importance of it. I hope I will be joined by plenty of colleagues who will encourage and urge and push, if necessary, the committee to bring this treaty to the floor. Give us a chance to debate this treaty and give us a chance to produce the votes to ratify this treaty, for this country's sake and for the sake of added security and safety in the world. We must prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. We must prevent the spread of technology that allows the delivery of nuclear weapons. One way to do that, in my judgment, is to prevent additional nuclear testing, and the way to do it is to ratify this treaty. It is long past the time to do it, and we ought to do it now and we ought to expect that be reported to the floor for debate in the next 2 to 3 months. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act.'' This act authorizes the U.S. Mint to produce a commemorative coin honoring the Lewis and Clark Expedition. This is a bill I introduced in the last Congress and which had the support of 43 other Senators. The bill is a companion to one that has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Bereuter. I am introducing this legislation to ensure that one of America's finest moments will be forever memorialized. The Lewis and Clark Expedition, called the Corps of Discovery, represents the finest in American history. The Expedition began in 1803 when President Thomas Jefferson commissioned the exploration of the newly purchased Louisiana Territory and ended in 1806 with the Expedition's triumphant return. When considering why we should commemorate the Expedition, it's important to recall Thomas Jefferson's vision for America's future and his dedication to expanding not only our geographic frontiers, but the frontiers of knowledge as well. Jefferson's vision is epitomized by his commissioning of the Expedition. Further, the Expedition represents a hallmark for peaceful diplomacy, as demonstrated by the friendly relations the Expedition established with the Native Americans it encountered on its journey. These are a few of the many valuable lessons from the Expedition that we should carry forward into the future. The minting of the Lewis and Clark Commemorative Coin was endorsed in the 1998 recommendations of the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee (CCCAC), which was established by the 102nd Congress. If, as expected, the coin sells out, approximately $5 million would be available to help fund bicentennial celebrations. After the Treasury Department has recovered all costs of minting this coin, two-thirds of the surcharge received would be available for the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council's commemorative activities. The Council is an outgrowth of the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, Inc., which was created in 1969 to continue the work of the Lewis and Clark Trail Commission, established by Congress in 1964. The remaining one-third of the surcharge will be donated to the National Park Service to help offset costs associated with their planned activities to commemorate the bicentennial. I feel confident that, with the support of my Senate colleagues and the passage of this bill, we can appropriately celebrate a vibrant and historically significant event.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act.'' This act authorizes the U.S. Mint to produce a commemorative coin honoring the Lewis and Clark Expedition. This is a bill I introduced in the last Congress and which had the support of 43 other Senators. The bill is a companion to one that has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Bereuter. I am introducing this legislation to ensure that one of America's finest moments will be forever memorialized. The Lewis and Clark Expedition, called the Corps of Discovery, represents the finest in American history. The Expedition began in 1803 when President Thomas Jefferson commissioned the exploration of the newly purchased Louisiana Territory and ended in 1806 with the Expedition's triumphant return. When considering why we should commemorate the Expedition, it's important to recall Thomas Jefferson's vision for America's future and his dedication to expanding not only our geographic frontiers, but the frontiers of knowledge as well. Jefferson's vision is epitomized by his commissioning of the Expedition. Further, the Expedition represents a hallmark for peaceful diplomacy, as demonstrated by the friendly relations the Expedition established with the Native Americans it encountered on its journey. These are a few of the many valuable lessons from the Expedition that we should carry forward into the future. The minting of the Lewis and Clark Commemorative Coin was endorsed in the 1998 recommendations of the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee (CCCAC), which was established by the 102nd Congress. If, as expected, the coin sells out, approximately $5 million would be available to help fund bicentennial celebrations. After the Treasury Department has recovered all costs of minting this coin, two-thirds of the surcharge received would be available for the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council's commemorative activities. The Council is an outgrowth of the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, Inc., which was created in 1969 to continue the work of the Lewis and Clark Trail Commission, established by Congress in 1964. The remaining one-third of the surcharge will be donated to the National Park Service to help offset costs associated with their planned activities to commemorate the bicentennial. I feel confident that, with the support of my Senate colleagues and the passage of this bill, we can appropriately celebrate a vibrant and historically significant event.

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 for 15 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of information given the American people in recent days about a potential settlement or at least progress with respect to ending the airstrikes in Yugoslavia. It appears from the reports I have received, both from the administration sources and also press reports, that the airstrikes have had a significant impact on Mr. Slovodan Milosevic, on his Serb troops, and on their ability to continue the reign of terror that has been committed against the Albanians in Kosovo. But as I read all of the reports, I am concerned about one element, and that is, if the airstrikes are terminated and if some kind of negotiated circumstance exists by which the Serbs withdraw from Kosovo and Mr. Milosevic remains in power, in my judgment, it remains unfinished business. We have in this decade been through a circumstance with Saddam Hussein where a war was concluded with the country of Iraq and Saddam Hussein retained his power. We have year after year after year had to deal with the consequences of Saddam Hussein remaining in power in the country of Iraq. It doesn't make any sense to me that we should do the same thing with Mr. Milosevic. With Mr. Saddam Hussein, we knew who he was, we knew what he had done, and this country should well have known that the conclusion of the war with Iraq should have resulted in his departure, or his leaving the leadership of that country. He is, I think, one of the only men in the world who has used weapons of mass destruction to murder people in his own land. We knew that about Saddam Hussein, and yet the war was concluded with Iraq, and he remained in power. The result has been problem after problem and consequence after consequence. We ought to learn from that. However we conclude this terrible chapter of violence committed against the Albanians in Kosovo, in my judgment, it will always be unfinished business if it is concluded in a manner that leaves Mr. Milosevic in power. We must find a way, it seems to me, for the protection not only of the Albanians in Kosovo but for some basic understanding we might have, that we will not have to revisit this issue very soon after the airstrikes cease. The only way that will occur, in my judgment, is if Mr. Milosevic is driven from office. I have spoken on the floor of the Senate a number of times suggesting that it is time to try Mr. Milosevic as a war criminal. I am pleased to say that he was indicted within the past 2 weeks and that indictment will likely result in trial. My hope is that trial--at least seeing the evidence that I have seen about the atrocities committed by Mr. Milosevic and the Serb troops--will result in his conviction as a war criminal. The atrocities are really quite unusual. He visited a reign of horror on these people in a manner that drove one to one and a half million of them from their homeland, often with their villages burning, with story after story of mass murder, ethnic cleansing, gang rape, and torture. The question for this country and the NATO allies is, Could we go 2 years, or 5 years, or 10 years down the road and look in our rearview mirror and say that we knew that happened but it didn't matter, that it wasn't our business? Our country and the NATO allies said no, it was our business; it does matter. We have the resources and the capability, through NATO, together to try to do something to put a stop to it. That has been the effort. Is the effort perfect? No. Have there been mistakes? Of course. But will we, by the judgment of history, be seen as a country and a group of countries attempting to do something in the face of ethnic cleansing, in the face of a ruthless leader who packs people into train cars and hauls them off to an uncertain fate, who, in the words of all of the refugees who have shown up at the border of Albania and Montenegro and other areas, has permitted mass rape and torture and murder against the citizens of Kosovo? Do we understand the consequences of that and the requirement to respond to it? The answer is yes. But I hope at the end of this chapter, Mr. Milosevic will not be a part of an agreement that leaves him in power. That will not, in my judgment, be finished business.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. My colleague from North Dakota is entirely correct. I am informed that no production in the coming fiscal year would likely result in a dangerous reduction to the inventory, and could force Navy training operations to be curtailed as early as 2002. This would clearly not be in our nation's interest. I am additionally informed that a gap in production next year could drive up unit cost sharply.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment for myself and Senator Smith of New Hampshire, to ensure that Navy and Marine Corps Combat veterans get the recognition they deeply deserve. The ongoing action in Kosovo reminds us of the dangers our men and women in uniform face when called upon during a time of conflict. In recognition of their service, they are awarded campaign and combat decorations to identify them as those who have faced this nation's fiercest challenge--enemy fire. America's combat veterans risk their lives to preserve our freedoms, and carry out the orders of the President in answering the challenges to our nation's security. During World War II, the Army created the combat infantry badge to identify those soldiers who had faced combat. The Navy had no similar award until the 1960's. Although the Navy awarded Combat Stars prior to that point, the Combat Action Ribbon was created as a way to better recognize those who had served in combat. Recently, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives to make Navy and Marine combat veterans who served in combat for any period after July 4, 1943, and before March 1, 1961, eligible for the Navy Combat Action Ribbon. In response to this legislation, a Pearl Harbor survivor from my state wrote to me and pointed out that the dates included in the legislation exclude many of the combat veterans who served in the war's fiercest naval battles, Pearl Harbor and Midway among them. In response to this oversight, our legislation will make eligible for the Navy Combat Action Ribbon those Navy and Marine combat veterans who served in combat for any period after December 6, 1941, and before March 1, 1961, The Secretary of the Navy will review those who apply for these awards to ensure that those who have not yet been recognized are not forgotten. We believe it is only appropriate that we honor those who were willing to sacrifice their lives for this country. amendment no. 498 (Purpose: To authorize Coast Guard participation in DOD education programs, and for other purposes) At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I received a very touching letter from a Vietnam Veteran from my state, who was recently awarded the Silver Star for his bravery during the Vietnam Conflict. Helping Al Myers get that Silver Star and the recognition he deserved for so long was a very rewarding experience. Al sent me this letter. It is a fictional remembrance of a soldier who's name is on the Vietnam Memorial. The letter defines the importance of paying tribute to our nation's honored soldiers who have fought for, won, and kept our freedom, whether that tribute comes in the form of our nation building a great ``Black Granite Wall,'' or simply a family member putting flowers on a beloved white tombstone at a veteran's cemetery. It exemplifies the strength, dedication, and sacrifice our nation's military men and women, and their families, make. We are forever indebted to them, and it fills me with great pride and humility to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our way of life as Americans. I thought it was very important to read it in honor of the Memorial Day Observance on Monday. It touched my heart and I wanted to share it here on the Floor today. It is called ``The Wall from the Other Side.'' The Wall From the Other Side (Pat Camunes) At first there was no place for us to go until someone put up that ``Black Granite Wall.'' Now, every day and night, my Brothers and Sisters wait to see the many people from places afar file in front of this ``Wall.'' Many people stopping briefly and many for hours and some that come on a regular basis. It was hard at first, not that it's gotten any easier, but it seems that many of the attitudes towards that Vietnam War we were involved in have changed. I can only pray that the ones on the other side have learned something, and more ``Walls'' as this one, needn't be built. Several members of my unit, and many that I did not recognize, have called me to The Wall by touching my name engraved upon it. The tears aren't necessary, but are hard even for me to hold back. Don't feel guilty for not being with me, my Brothers. This was my destiny as it is yours to be on that side of The Wall. Touch The Wall, my Brothers, so that I can share in the memories that we had. I have learned to put the bad memories aside and remember only the pleasant times that we had together. Tell our other Brothers out there to come and visit me, not to say Good-bye but to say Hello and be together again . . . even for a short time . . . and to ease that pain of loss that we all still share. Today, an irresistible and loving call summons me to The Wall. As I approach, I can see an elderly lady . . . and as I get closer, I recognize her--It's Momma! As much as I have looked forward to this day, I have also dreaded it, because I didn't know what reaction I would have. Next to her, I suddenly see my wife and immediately think how hard it must have been for her to come to this place, and my mind floods with the pleasant memories of 30 years past. There's a young man in a military uniform standing with his arm around her--My God!--he has to be my son! Look at him trying to be the man without a tear in his eye. I yearn to tell him how proud I am, seeing him stand tall, straight and proud in his uniform. Momma comes closer and touches The Wall, and I feel the soft and gentle touch I had not felt in so many years. Dad has crossed to this side of The Wall, and through our touch, I try to convince her that Dad is doing fine and is no longer suffering or feeling pain. I see my wife's courage building as she sees Momma touch The Wall and she approaches and lays her hand on my waiting hand. All the emotions, feelings and memories of three decades past flash between our touch and I tell her that . . . it's all right . . . carry on with your life and don't worry about me . . . I can see as I look into her eyes that she hears and a big burden has been lifted from her on wings of understanding. I watch as they lay flowers and other memories of my past. My lucky charm that was taken from me and sent to her by my CO . . . a tattered and worn teddy bear that I can barely remember having as I grew up as a child . . . and several medals that I had earned and were presented to my wife. One is the Combat Infantry badge that I am very proud of, and I notice that my son is also wearing this medal. I had earned mine in the jungles of Vietnam and he had probably earned his in the deserts of Iraq. I can tell that they are preparing to leave, and I try to take a mental picture of them together, because I don't know when I will see them again. I wouldn't blame them if they were not to return, and can only thank them that I was not forgotten. My wife and Momma near The Wall for one final touch, and so many years of indecision, fear and sorrow are let go. As they turn to leave, I feel my tears that had not flowed for so many years, form as if dew drops on the other side of The Wall. They slowly move away with only a glance over their shoulders. My son suddenly stops and slowly returns. He stands straight and proud in front of me and snaps a salute. Something draws him near The Wall and he puts his hand upon the etched stone and touches my tears that had formed as dew drops on the face of The Wall . . . and I can tell that he senses my presence and the pride and love that I have for him. He falls to his knees and the tears flow from his eyes and I try my best to reassure him that it's all right, and the tears do not make him any less of a man. As he moves back wiping the tears from his eyes, he silently mouths, ``God Bless you, Dad . . .'' God Bless You, Son . . . we Will meet someday, but in the meanwhile go on your way . . . there is no hurry at all. As I see them walk off in the distance, I yell loud to Them and Everyone there today, as loud as I can: Thank You For Remembering. . . . Thank You All For Remembering . . . and as others on this side of The Wall join in, I notice the U.S. Flag, Old Glory, that so proudly flies in front of us everyday, is flapping and standing proudly straight out in the wind from our gathering numbers this day . . . and I shout again, and . . . again . . . and again . . . Thanks for Remembering! Thanks for Remembering! Thanks for Remembering!