Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document I received from the White House and their Office of Management and Budget, a statement of administration policy expressing support for S. 149 and also clarifying that there is minimal pay-go consequence to this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Given the support of this legislation by the Bush administration, including the Department of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, it has been noted in this Chamber that somehow the Bush administration is not yet staffed up. Do you believe that the Bush administration would endorse legislation of this consequence and of this importance if they felt that somehow their counsel had been inadequate or had been short? Or do you believe that the Bush administration felt very comfortable about its familiarity with the details of this legislation in issuing its recommendation for passage?

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this historic legislation before the Senate. I regret that there is resistance to the motion to proceed. I believe it would be best to proceed to the consideration of this legislation by the full Senate, to debate the merits of the legislation, and, for those who object, to provide opportunities for them to offer amendments to be debated on their merits in the course of our consideration. Whether we move forward today or are delayed a couple more days, it is important that we move ahead as expeditiously as we can on passage of the Export Administration Act reauthorization. This legislation is the culmination of many long hours of bipartisan cooperation to modernize America's export laws to reflect our rapidly changing world. It was first put together last year, when I served as ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance of the Banking Committee. Senator Enzi, my Republican colleague from Wyoming, served as chairman of that subcommittee. We were able to pass similar legislation out of the committee on a 20-0 vote. This year Senator Enzi and I have moved on to other subcommittees but have remained actively involved in this issue. I particularly commend Senator Enzi for his continued strong leadership and the work he and his staff have put into this effort. The consequence of that work during this Congress has been the legislation before us that passed out of the Banking Committee on a bipartisan vote of 19-1 and which has the support of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, as well as the National Security Adviser to the President. While there are some who raise the specter of diminished security concerns, it is interesting that, in fact, not only is there overwhelming bipartisan congressional support for this balanced piece of legislation, but the people who are most knowing or most in the position to advocate for strong national security in America, our President and Secretaries of Defense and State, are all supportive of this legislation. To raise the specter of China strikes me as something that has been thought through very carefully by our President and our defense establishment in the course of endorsing and supporting this bill. The fact is, under this legislation, our national security would be strengthened, not diminished. Yes, sales of technology items could be made to China but only those items which our defense establishment and our President endorse as appropriate sales and which are otherwise available on the open market. I have had the great pleasure of working on a team with Senators Enzi, Gramm, Sarbanes, and their staffs, to craft this legislation. I thank them for their professionalism and their cooperation on this effort. It is rare that legislation of this importance comes before the Senate with this level of bipartisan support, and the cooperation and support of the White House and the defense and commerce establishments in the United States. It is a rare day that legislation of such consensus comes before us. I had hoped we would not lose this opportunity to advance the interests of our national security and our economy at the same time. I am gratified for the support of the Bush administration and their willingness to express their support for the legislation. I also note with appreciation the role Senators Gramm and Sarbanes have played. We have had constructive participation across the board, and that spirit contributed to the construction of the newly amended version of S. 149 that is before the Senate today. As my colleagues know, we live in a truly global economy. America has enjoyed unprecedented growth in recent years in large part because of the expansion of our marketplace overseas. American businesses look well beyond our borders for customers, and exports play a critical role in keeping our economy strong. We have also seen enormous changes in the goods, services, and the technologies American companies produce. Back in my home State of South Dakota, we have seen a 172-percent increase in high-tech employment over this past decade. Our workers have benefited from the good jobs and fair salaries that the high-tech sector brings. The goods, the services, and the technologies they produce are in tremendous demand throughout the world. However, we must not be naive. Certain products and technologies can be used for the wrong purpose. But we must not allow fear to prevent us from crafting laws that face those issues head on and establish a balance between economic growth and national security, and our other needs. The Export Administration Act is a thoughtful, balanced bill. EAA is an important step toward ensuring our continued ability to export American goods to the rest of the world. At the same time, EAA includes the necessary safeguards to ensure that our export policy protects our vital national security interests. Since EAA's expiration in 1990, Congress has declined numerous opportunities to reauthorize the EAA. I lament those missed opportunities, and strongly urge my colleagues not to squander the opportunity before us today. Reauthorization has become still more urgent as the courts consider the legality of our reliance on an expired EAA, and on the annual temporary extensions we provided in the underlying legal authority claimed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. I fear the day that one of these challenges will ultimately succeed and strip this Congress of any control over sensitive dual-use technologies. Contrary to what some of my distinguished colleagues may argue, reauthorization of the EAA in fact greatly enhances our national security. We had a simple goal when we embarked on this effort: reduce or eliminate controls on exports with no security implications, and tighten controls on exports that raise security concerns. These principles are not controversial; yet crafting legislation that puts these principles into practice has been difficult to accomplish. We worked very closely with concerned Senators, the national security establishment, the administration, and the impacted industries. I believe we addressed the major concerns in a balanced manner. We increased the penalties on export violations, so that violators of export control laws will pay a real price for breaking the law. We made realistic assessments with respect to what items should be decontrolled based on foreign availability and mass market standards. It does us no good to be trying to limit the export of items that can be found anywhere on the open market throughout the world. In one respect, however, I am disappointed. I am disappointed that we were forced to drop title IV, which lifted the practice of using food and medicine as a weapon against rogue nations. It is my understanding that a majority of the national farm groups believe our language could potentially delay regulatory actions with respect to the lifting of sanctions. But as important as that legislation is, I also acknowledge that there are other forms, other vehicles, legislatively for those issues to be taken up at a time when we need to focus primarily on the export of high-technology products and the defense implications of those exports in the course of this debate. I am confident there will be other opportunities to raise the larger issue of economic sanctions on agricultural and medical products throughout the world. My colleagues, the Export Administration Act is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It is good for America and for Americans. S. 149 strengthens our national security--it doesn't weaken it. To those who argue against this legislation in light of recent events with China, I respectfully refer to them to the Cox Report that specifically recommended reauthorization of the EAA as a way to strengthen our national security with respect to exports to China. The EAA is a strategic, intelligent response to the real threats that face America. America benefits when our businesses prosper. Exporting technology has long been an American success story. The high-tech field will lead our economy into the next century. We understand, new technologies could prove dangerous in the wrong hands, and our national security depends in part on limiting access to limited specific goods, services and technologies. That is the balance we seek to strike, and I believe S. 149 does that. That is the balance that has caused this broad-based, bipartisan support, and the support of the White House, for this effort. I look forward to a vigorous debate of these important issues. Passage of this EAA bill will make a significant contribution to our national security and will help bring transparency to our export control system. I encourage my colleagues to join this bipartisan, balanced approach to these critical issues. I regret that we may not proceed today on the motion. If that is the case, I have great confidence that with the cloture motion we will be back on this legislation within a very short period of time. Again, in closing, I commend the leadership of Senator Enzi, my friend from my neighboring State of Wyoming, and his staff for the work they have devoted to this effort, as well as to Chairman Gramm and the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, who have worked with us and with their staffs throughout this entire effort. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 86th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. From 1915 to 1923, 1.5 million Armenians were executed in the first genocide of the 20th Century. Sadly, there are some people who still deny the very existence of this period which saw the institutionalized slaughter of the Armenian people and the dismantling of Armenian culture. To those who would question these events, I refer them to numerous documents kept by the United States National Archives, which detail these horrifying events. The entire Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was forcibly removed from their historic homeland in present-day eastern Turkey. A million and a half people were massacred and another 500,000 were exiled. As the United States Ambassador to the Ottoman State at the time, Henry Morgenthau, said, ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' Tragically, the Armenian genocide was the first in a series of genocides in the 20th Century. Adolf Hitler, in preparing his genocide plans for the Jews, predicted that no one would remember the atrocities he was about to unleash. After all, he asked, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' And that is why we come together every year at this time to remember. The genocide of the Armenians did take place, and we do remember. That memory must be kept alive, to keep us vigilant in our efforts to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that will commemorate the life of Crazy Horse. Crazy Horse was a great leader of his people, and the designation of September 6 will be the ultimate commendation for his bravery and contribution to Native Americans. Crazy Horse was born on Rapid Creek in 1843. He was killed when he was only 34 years of age, September 6, 1877. He was stabbed in the back by a soldier at Fort Robinson, Nebraska, while he was under U.S. Army protection. During his life he was a great leader of his people. Crazy Horse was warrior and a military genius. His battle strategies are studied to this day at West Point. Crazy Horse was bestowed with the honor of becoming a Shirt Wearer. This honor is comparable to duties like that of the Secretary of State. Crazy Horse defended his people and their way of life in the only manner he knew, but only after he saw the treaty of 1868 broken. He took to the warpath only after he saw his friend Conquering Bear killed; only after he saw the failure of the government agents to bring required treaty guarantees such as food, clothing, shelter and necessities for existence. In battle the Sioux war leader would rally his warriors with the cry, ``It is a good day to fight, it is a good day to die.'' Throughout recent history, a memorial commemorating the life of this great warrior is under construction in my state of South Dakota. I would like to take these efforts one step further and designate September 6, 2001, the 124th anniversary of Crazy Horse's death, as ``National Crazy Horse Day.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in the commemoration of this great hero.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, domestic violence is often the crime that victims don't want to admit and communities don't want to discuss. However, almost 15,000 domestic violence victims in South Dakota last year secured help from the Department of Social Services. This represents a low estimate of the number of South Dakotans who are victims of domestic violence, as many victims fail to seek help. Since enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the number of forcible rapes of women have declined, and the number of sexual assaults nationwide have gone down as well. Despite the success of the Violence Against Women Act, domestic abuse and violence against women continue to plague our communities. Consider the fact that a woman is raped every 5 minutes in this country, and that nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. In fact, more women are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile accidents and cancer deaths combined. These facts illustrate that there is a need in Congress to help States and communities address this problem that impacts all of our communities. Last year, I was pleased to join the successful effort to reauthorize the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. In addition to reauthorizing the provisions of the original Violence Against Women Act, the legislation improves our overall efforts to reduce violence against women by strengthening law enforcement's role in reducing violence against women. The legislation also expands legal services and assistance to victims of violence, while also addressing the effects of domestic violence on children. Finally, programs are funded to strengthen education and training to combat violence against women. This year, I am cosponsoring legislation, S. 540, that would establish a permanent Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice. This bill would guarantee that the office will continue its work into future administrations and ensure that the Congress' goals regarding domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking will be carried out. As a State lawmaker in 1983, I wrote one of the first domestic violence laws in South Dakota which dedicated a portion of marriage license fees to help build shelters for battered women. I was also a cosponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act in 1990 in the House of Representatives. Even at that time, many people denied that domestic violence existed in our state. Finally, in 1995, the President signed legislation to strengthen federal criminal law relating to violence against women and fund programs to help women who have been assaulted. Since the Violence Against Women Act became law, South Dakota organizations have received over $6.7 million in federal funding for domestic abuse programs. In addition, the Violence Against Women Act doubled prison time for repeat sex offenders; established mandatory restitution to victims of violence against women; codified much of our existing laws on rape; and strengthened interstate enforcement of violent crimes against women. The law also created a national toll-free hotline to provide women with crisis intervention help, information about violence against women, and free referrals to local services. Last year, the hotline took its 300,000th call. The number for women to call for help is: 1- 800-799-SAFE. I am hopeful that, with my support, the Senate will approve S. 540 this year so that we can continue fighting domestic abuse and violence against women in our state and communities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. With the many priorities we have to cope with, I would simply like to point out that we cannot lose sight of the need to address the very critical problem of labor shortages plaguing our health care providers both in my State, and all across the Nation. It is important that the budget resolution we ultimately pass address these labor shortages. In my own State of South Dakota, for example, it is not uncommon to have a 100 percent turnover rate for Certified Nursing Assistants-- clearly that's a crisis that should not and cannot continue if we are going to maintain quality care for seniors. And for anyone who doesn't know what the Certified Nursing Assistants do--they are the ones who provide the front line, bedside care to the frail and elderly. A very difficult and demanding job. Another major problem is that the average starting salary for South Dakota's certified nursing assistants is just $7.32 per hour--and the average wage is $8.10 per hour.

Mr. JOHNSON. Just as bad, and yet another problem that creates a parallel crisis, is the fact that many states--including my own--simply do not have realistic Medicaid reimbursement rates. In my state, Medicaid provides the resources for care for more than two out of three patients in nursing homes. South Dakota's average daily Medicaid reimbursement rate is $83.78 per patient, which, in fact, is a $17.34 shortfall from covering the actual cost of care. It's simply not plausible for $83.78 per day to cover the cost of care, room and board, three meals a day, medicine, specialized equipment and other critical needs. The net result of these artificially low Medicaid reimbursement rates is that they further squeeze an already difficult labor and staffing situation--and these problems feed on themselves to make matters very, very problematic for our health care providers. Until we begin increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates to levels more than we pay a babysitter, for example, this squeeze will continue and seniors will be threatened.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Collins in offering an amendment to the budget resolution that provides a reserve fund for veterans' education. This reserve fund will allow for legislation to be passed later this year that would increase the monthly benefit under the Montgomery GI Bill to reflect the rising cost of education. The 1944 GI Bill of Rights is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. No program has been more successful in increasing educational opportunities for our country's veterans while also providing a valuable incentive for the best and brightest to make a career out of military service. Unfortunately, the current Montgomery GI Bill can no longer deliver these results and fails in its promise to veterans, new recruits and the men and women of the armed services. Over 96 percent of recruits currently sign up for the Montgomery GI Bill and pay $1,200 out of their first year's pay to guarantee eligibility. But only one-half of these military personnel use any of the current Montgomery GI Bill benefits. There is consensus among national higher education and veterans associations that at a minimum, the GI Bill should pay the costs of attending the average four-year public institution as a commuter student. The current Montgomery GI Bill benefit pays a little more than half of that cost. In addition to our reserve fund budget amendment, Senator Collins and I have introduced legislation called the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act, S.131, which creates that benchmark by indexing the GI Bill to the costs of attending the average four-year public institution as a commuter student. This benchmark cost will be updated annually by the College Board in order for the GI Bill to keep pace with increasing costs of education. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act is truly a bipartisan effort to address recruitment and retention in the armed forces. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act has the overwhelming support of the Partnership for Veterans' Education a coalition of the nation's leading veterans groups and higher education organizations including the VFW, the American Council on Education, the Non Commissioned Officers Association, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and The Retired Officers Association. As the parent of a son who serves in the Army, these military ``quality of life'' issues are of particular concern to me. Making the GI Bill pay for viable educational opportunity makes as much sense today as it did following World War II. Congress took an important step last year toward improving the Montgomery GI Bill. These changes are long overdue, and the next step in restoring the effectiveness of the Montgomery GI Bill is through our veterans' education reserve fund amendment to the budget resolution and the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and ask unanimous consent that letters of support for the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, adoption is a rewarding, but often expensive and frustrating option for many South Dakota families. As a member of the bipartisan ``adoption caucus'' in the Senate I have tried to make adoption a more viable option for loving parents. During the past couple of years, we have made major improvements in adoption policy including legislation: giving parents of adopted children the same time-off rights as those who give birth; outlawing racial or ethnic discrimination in adoption; automatically giving foreign-born adoptees American citizenship; and implementing international agreements to outlaw trafficking in children and promoting international adoption. These laws have resulted in an increase of adoptions nationwide by cutting much of the paperwork and bureaucracy of the adoption process. Yet there are still almost half a million kids in foster care nationwide, and a large number of those are minorities and kids with special needs. There are even more families who want to adopt, but simply can't afford to. More needs to be done. For too many South Dakotans, adoption is not an option because of the high costs associated with it. By some estimates, an adoption can cost upwards of $25,000 in fees, paperwork, and legal assistance. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of bipartisan legislation called the Hope for Children Act. This bill will help South Dakotans choose adoption by increasing the current tax credits for non-special needs children and special needs children to $10,000. This bill will also make the tax credit permanent, adjust the credit for inflation, and increase the income cap for families to be eligible for the tax credit. I have talked with a number of South Dakotans who have adopted children with special needs, and I discovered that changes needed to also be made to the types of adoption expenses that can be credited. For example, families adopting a special needs child may have to buy a wheelchair or special van for the adopted child with a physical disability. Counseling may also be needed for the family to cope with the extraordinary challenges of a child with special needs. Instead of being limited to the adoption expenses that the Internal Revenue Service decides are allowable, these families would be entitled to the full credit and exclusion under the Hope for Children Act. South Dakota families will receive tax relief by the end of this year. The amount that each family gets will be the result of a spirited, yet constructive debate that will take place here in Congress. Throughout this discussion, I will continue to emphasize the need to make changes in our tax code that encourage new and growing South Dakota families through adoption.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Doolittle Raiders on the 60th anniversary of their memorable flights. The surprise Japanese raid of Pearl Harbor was just the beginning of a series of bad news for Americans at the beginning of World War II. In a period of months, the Japanese had invaded and conquered land stretching from Burma to Polynesia. The United States badly needed a boost in morale. The answer was the Doolittle Raid. The concept was simple: A Navy task force would take 15 B-25s to a point about 450 miles off of Japan where they would be launched from a carrier to attack military targets at low altitude in five major Japanese cities, including the capital city of Tokyo. The planes would then fly to a base in China where they would join the China-Burma-India theater. It was the implementation of the plan that made the men involved in the raid heroes. On April 18, 1941, sixteen flights of B-25s, one captained by South Dakota native son Capt. Donald Smith, left the deck of the U.S.S. Hornet, bound for Tokyo. But the Japanese had seen the Americans coming, and the planes were forced to take off from the Hornet at least 650 miles from the Japanese coast. The planes would not have enough fuel to make it to China. All of the planes made their bombing runs on their respective cities, and then turned westward toward China. One crew, with not enough fuel to make it to China, landed in Russia and were prisoners of war for over a year. Eleven of the other planes that reached China faced terrible weather and empty tanks. They proceeded inland on instruments and bailed out once their fuel tanks reached zero. The remaining four pilots crash-landed their aircraft. Chinese aided the Americans in reaching their base, and more than a quarter-million of the Chinese were subsequently killed by the Japanese for their suspected help. Sixty-four of the ``Raiders'' eventually made it to the base in China. Others were captured and tortured, or died while ejecting their planes. The Doolittle mission was the first good news from the Pacific front, and was a huge boost to American morale. It also devastated the Japanese people, who had been told by their leaders that their homeland could never be attacked. In Belle Fourche, SD, on April 18, South Dakotans will be remembering the 60th anniversary of this daring raid. I commend the Doolittle Raiders, and all American veterans, for they are truly America's heroes. Our country must honor its commitments to veterans, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the smart thing to do. I will continue to lead efforts to ensure that our nation's military retirees and veterans receive the benefits they were promised years ago. While I am pleased with some improvements in military health care funding passed into law last year, I am concerned that more needs to be done. Assuredly, I will continue to fight for military retirees and veterans programs throughout this session of Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to first commend Senate Budget Committee Chairman Domenici for including an increase in his budget mark for veterans' health care. This funding level is in line with what the Administration proposed in its budget request and shows a renewed commitment to veterans' health care. While I am pleased that this budget includes an increase in outlays, I am disappointed that it falls short of the funding level proposed in the authoritative Independent Budget endorsed by 40 veterans groups and medical societies, including AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW. That is why I join Senator Wellstone in offering an amendment today that would increase appropriations for veterans health care by $1.718 billion over the Budget Committee's level. With our amendment, the Senate budget resolution would include an increase in appropriations of $2.6 billion for veterans health care over last year's funding level. Our amendment pays for this increase in health care for our nation's veterans with a modest decrease in the $1.6 trillion in tax cuts proposed by the President. For a number of years, the VA had to contend with a flat-line appropriation for veterans' health care as the cost of health care far outpaced the rate of inflation. As a result, the VA experienced deep cuts at a time when it should have been addressing the growing need for medical care for this country's veterans. For the past 2 years, I have offered amendments in the Budget Committee and on the Senate floor to increase veterans funding to allow the VA to continue giving quality care to veterans. With the help of the chairman, we were able to increase VA health care funding by $1.7 billion for fiscal year 2000 and $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2001. These were good steps in restoring budget equity to veterans' health care. We must continue this process by increasing funding for veterans' health care to the level recommended in the Independent Budget. It is critical that we increase veterans health care funding over and above the Chairman's mark in order to compensate for previous underfunded VA budgets and to allow the VA to meet the growing health care needs of our veterans. Veterans from South Dakota visited my office recently with stories of understaffed VA hospitals, long waits for appointments, and reductions or cuts in vital services. These situations are not unique to my state and affect every VA hospital and clinic in the country. With adoption of our amendment, we will have a VA veterans' health care budget that can adequately offset the higher costs of medical care caused by consumer inflation, medical care inflation, wage increases, and legislation passed by Congress. Without a total increase of $2.6 billion above last year's appropriation in veterans health care, the VA will likely be unable to address the treatment of Hepatitis C, emergency medical services, increased costs due to medical inflation, and long-term care initiatives. The Independent Budget highlights the need to increase funding in a number of important health care initiatives including: an additional $523 million for mental health care; an additional $848 million for long-term care; an additional $25 million to restore the Spinal Cord Injury program; an additional $75 million to help homeless veterans. Our efforts over the past 2 years to increase VA veterans' health care have helped to reverse the damaging effects of years of flat-lined VA budgets. We have an opportunity to continue this progress by adopting our amendment to increase funding for VA veterans' health care by $1.718 billion over the Chairman's level in the budget resolution. With our amendment, we will fund veterans' health care at the level requested in the Independent Budget. I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Wellstone amendment on veterans' health care. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for our amendment from veterans organizations.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 2001, legislation that addresses the critical issue facing our older Americans--the cost of their prescription drugs. Studies have shown that older Americans spend almost three times as much of their income on health care than those under the age of 65, and more than three-quarters of Americans aged 65 and over are taking prescription drugs. Study after study has shown that seniors and others who buy their own prescription drugs, are forced to pay over twice as much for their drugs as are the drug manufactures' most favored customers, such as the federal government and large HMOs. Even more alarming is the fact that consumers in the United States pay far more for their prescription drugs than do citizens of other developed nations, resulting in price discrimination against millions of Americans. U.S. consumers are footing the bill for drug manufacturer's skyrocketing profit margins year in and year out. This is wrong and unfair. The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act will protect senior citizens and disabled individuals from drug price discrimination and make prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. The legislation achieves these goals by allowing pharmacies that serve Medicare beneficiaries to purchase prescription drugs at the drugs' low ``average foreign price.'' Under the bill, the ``average foreign price'' means the average price that the manufacturer realizes on drugs sold in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Last year, the ``reimportation'' bill had broad bipartisan support. Estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by over 40 percent, this bill will help those seniors and disabled individuals who often times have to make devastating choices between buying food or medications. Choices that no human being should have to make. Research and development of new drug therapies is an important and necessary tool towards improving a persons quality of life. But due to the high price tag that often accompanies the latest drug therapies, seniors are often left without access to these new therapies, and ultimately, in far too many instances, without access to medication at all. This legislation is an important step towards restoring the access to affordable medications for all Medicare beneficiaries. While this may not be the magic bullet that meets all of the long term needs of providing Medicare prescription drug coverage, it does provide a mechanism for immediate relief from rising drug costs. Working together, reaching across the aisle, we can use this time of unparalleled prosperity to do the right thing by our seniors. We should do it this year for their sake, and for the sake of the future of Medicare. I look forward to working on this important issue in the months to come and hope that Congress will work swiftly in a bipartisan manner to enact this legislation that will benefit millions of senior citizens and disabled individuals across our nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I do, Mr. President.

Mr. JOHNSON. If I might have just 2 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, for his leadership, and thank him and my friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for their very able explanation of what the tradeoffs are as we engage in this budget debate. There is broad-based agreement we need a significant increase in the level of funding necessary for agriculture. In fact, that agreement is bipartisan. Forty-four Senators have written the Budget leadership-- including 19 of my Republican colleagues--asking for additional resources for agriculture. In addition, over 20 farm and commodity organizations have been asking for the resources roughly equivalent to what we are doing in the Johnson amendment, ranging from the very conservative to liberal organizations in the country, from the Farm Bureau to the Farmers Union, and including corn, wheat, dairy, soybean, cotton, rice, and sugar producers. You name it. We have across-the-board support from agricultural organizations. I think the sense is to do this in a forthright manner rather than playing games with this so-called contingency fund which, in the first measure, is largely composed of Medicare trust fund dollars and should not be used for these reasons anyway and also keeping in mind the tremendous demands that will more than envelop the contingency fund out of defense, out of nonagricultural disasters, out of additional tax cut proposals, and out of prescription drugs. The more forthright way to do this is to simply recognize that we ought to utilize the surplus this year and downsize very marginally the size of the overall tax cut over 10 years. We can do that and still afford a very significant tax cut. This is not a question of whether or not we are going to have a tax cut. We will have a tax cut. It will be huge. In fact, we can do this and have a tax cut at least as large as what President Bush has proposed for middle class and working families. We could go even larger and do this as well. So it is not a tradeoff in terms of a tax cut or no tax cut. It is a matter of whether we are going to be fiscally responsible. It is a matter of whether we are going to deal with the agricultural and conservation needs of this country and do it in a stable, consistent way without jeopardizing Medicare. Our goal is to get away from these ad hoc multibillion-dollar disaster packages which are unreliable and which no producer can take to his bank with the assurance it is going to happen in the next year and, instead, have a stable, set, and certain kind of level of funding for agriculture for this coming farm bill and this year. It is our goal to do this and to do it in a fiscally responsible way without jeopardizing Medicare, without setting up a fight over whether it is going to be farm relief or whether it is going to be an increase in defense spending but, instead, to set this funding assigned to do it, utilizing some of these projected surpluses over the coming decade as well as for this year. This is a responsible way to do it, to have some certainty, to not have financing for the agricultural sector of our economy subject to the whims of the politics of any particular given year, and to not be utilizing what, in my view, is a largely bogus contingency fund. It simply doesn't work that way. Because we have bipartisan support for a significant ramping up of support for agriculture and conservation, I am hopeful that when the dust settles out of this debate we can have that kind of across-the- aisle support for our efforts with this Johnson amendment. This is badly needed. We are going through a time of great crisis in America.

Mr. JOHNSON. I, again, applaud Senator Conrad for his leadership in helping to integrate this into a more thoughtful, balanced budget strategy.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of one of South Dakota's most exceptional public leaders, and a life-long friend in my home town of Vermillion, SD. Bill Radigan led a full life, committed to his family, his nation and his community. Bill answered America's call to the military during World War II as a member of the Army Air Corps. He served the Vermillion region during his 35 years with the U.S. Postal Service, while simultaneously coordinating Vermillion's school bus system. He served as secretary of the South Dakota teener baseball program for over 30 years and provided needed leadership through the American Legion and VFW. Bill was secretary-treasurer of the Vermillion Volunteer Fire Department for 55 years, and served as city councilman and mayor of Vermillion, where he oversaw the development of progressive new projects in our home town. I had the privilege of working with Bill on issues ranging from veterans' benefits to the Vermillion-Newcastle Bridge, which will span the Missouri River by the end of this summer. But for all of Bill Radigan's commitment to public service, nothing was more important in his life than his family. He and his wife Susie made a dynamic pair in our community, and their 11 children and many grandchildren were of utmost importance to them. Bill's national, State, and community leadership achievements were extraordinary, but the strong family values he and Susie lived out every day of their marriage serves as well as an inspiration for all. I had the privilege of attending Bill's funeral this past week, and the outpouring of love and respect from the entire community was extraordinary. Our Nation and South Dakota are far better places because of Bill's life, and while we miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to public service and family.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 2001, legislation that addresses the critical issue facing our older Americans--the cost of their prescription drugs. Studies have shown that older Americans spend almost three times as much of their income on health care than those under the age of 65, and more than three-quarters of Americans aged 65 and over are taking prescription drugs. Study after study has shown that seniors and others who buy their own prescription drugs, are forced to pay over twice as much for their drugs as are the drug manufactures' most favored customers, such as the federal government and large HMOs. Even more alarming is the fact that consumers in the United States pay far more for their prescription drugs than do citizens of other developed nations, resulting in price discrimination against millions of Americans. U.S. consumers are footing the bill for drug manufacturer's skyrocketing profit margins year in and year out. This is wrong and unfair. The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act will protect senior citizens and disabled individuals from drug price discrimination and make prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. The legislation achieves these goals by allowing pharmacies that serve Medicare beneficiaries to purchase prescription drugs at the drugs' low ``average foreign price.'' Under the bill, the ``average foreign price'' means the average price that the manufacturer realizes on drugs sold in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Last year, the ``reimportation'' bill had broad bipartisan support. Estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by over 40 percent, this bill will help those seniors and disabled individuals who often times have to make devastating choices between buying food or medications. Choices that no human being should have to make. Research and development of new drug therapies is an important and necessary tool towards improving a persons quality of life. But due to the high price tag that often accompanies the latest drug therapies, seniors are often left without access to these new therapies, and ultimately, in far too many instances, without access to medication at all. This legislation is an important step towards restoring the access to affordable medications for all Medicare beneficiaries. While this may not be the magic bullet that meets all of the long term needs of providing Medicare prescription drug coverage, it does provide a mechanism for immediate relief from rising drug costs. Working together, reaching across the aisle, we can use this time of unparalleled prosperity to do the right thing by our seniors. We should do it this year for their sake, and for the sake of the future of Medicare. I look forward to working on this important issue in the months to come and hope that Congress will work swiftly in a bipartisan manner to enact this legislation that will benefit millions of senior citizens and disabled individuals across our nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I withdraw my suggestion.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment to the budget resolution pertaining to agriculture to follow on the amendment of the Senator from Iowa discussing the changes needed relative to agriculture itself. This amendment is cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Conrad of North Dakota. This amendment will provide permanency of farm aid for this crop year and will increase the budget for the next 10 years so that Congress can begin to fashion a new farm bill. This amendment includes $9 billion in emergency farm assistance for fiscal year 2001 and $88 billion in additional agricultural assistance above the Congressional Budget Office baseline over the years 2002 to 2011, including a minimum of $9.4 billion for farm conservation programs. This is roughly a 50-percent increase over the baseline funding for conservation. Finally, of the $88 billion in additional funds provided to agriculture during fiscal years 2002 through 2011, $58 billion is provided for the fiscal years 2003 through 2007, assumed to be the first 5 years of the new farm bill and also the period when the need for additional assistance, frankly, will be greatest. We have found an immense shortcoming in the existing farm legislation, and we have augmented that funding in recent years --3 years in a row now--with ad hoc disaster legislation. We seek to make room in this year's budget debate for the eventuality of the need for an additional augmentation to address this year's disaster in the same manner as we have in the past years. Frankly, the budget numbers contained in this amendment will be less than what many of the farm organizations are coming to Washington contending they will need. Nonetheless, it will assure the ability of Congress to address these issues both for the coming fiscal year and during the duration of the coming farm bill. I know there are those who will suggest that there is a contingency fund, and we can turn to that in the event those funds are needed. But the contingency fund, as outlined by the President, consists largely of Medicare trust fund dollars. And secondly, the predictable demands on those dollars--the need for increased spending for defense, for tax extenders, for alternative minimum tax reform, for pension reform, for any number of other issues which we know very well will need to be brought up during this Congress--will more than overwhelm the contingency fund. The responsible approach is, instead, to provide explicitly for agriculture in the course of working up this budget resolution. I believe there will be a significant tax cut. My constituents want a tax cut. I support a significant level of tax relief. But we need to make sure, as we approach this budget resolution, that while on the one hand we do secure the funding necessary for significant tax cut relief, particularly for middle-class and working families, at the same time we balance it in a thoughtful fashion so that we are allowed to pay down debt, strengthen Medicare, strengthen education, and, among other things, take care of our needs in rural America. Rural America has not prospered over this past decade in the way that most of the rest of our Nation has. These have been growing times, prosperous times across much of America. Much of the rural side of our Nation has struggled under population loss, under low incomes, under staggeringly low agricultural prices, all at the same time input costs--from fertilizer to fuel--have gone through the roof. Farmers and ranchers all across our Nation have been caught in a terrible bind these last several years, and we need, in the course of putting together this budget resolution, to make sure we have provided the necessary resources so that the Ag Committee can go on with the construction of a new farm bill and so we can avoid the uncertainty of disaster relief in the coming year. Since 1997, our Nation's family farmers have experienced a price crisis of simply enormous proportions, perpetuated by a series of weather-related disasters in certain regions. Surplus crop production both here and abroad, weak global demand--exports are down-- agribusiness consolidation resulting in a loss of market access, and an inadequate farm safety net, all of these coming together are prime reasons, in my opinion, for what is a price crisis both in the grain sector and the livestock sector of our ag economy. Moreover, given the input-intensive nature of production agriculture, many farmers and ranchers are having to pay more each year for their critical inputs. This situation has put them in a price-cost squeeze, making it nearly impossible to earn returns that cover their expenses. As a result of woefully inadequate farm bill price protection, Congress has enacted multibillion-dollar disaster programs over the last 3 years--in fact, a record $28 billion in fiscal year 2000. It should be noted that direct Government payments accounted for around three-fourths of net cash income from major field crops in 1999 and for about two-thirds in the year 2000. USDA predicts 2001 may be the worst year ever. Without supplemental income or emergency aid, USDA estimates that net farm income in 2001 could reach its lowest level since 1984-- the absolute depth of the farm crisis in this Nation in recent generations. That said, I am disappointed that the underlying budget resolution does not include funding for a new farm bill that will ensure economic security for family farmers, ranchers, and rural communities now and into the future. It is clear that the 1996 farm bill's promise to create a bridge to prosperity and less dependence upon Government assistance for farmers has been broken. Three years of costly ad hoc disaster and economic aid programs illustrate the need to revise our farm policy now and to do it in a financially responsible way. I believe Congress can and should amend current farm policy immediately to provide a more predictable and secure safety net for family farmers. Our amendment also will provide for that opportunity. I am pleased to join the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, to include funding in the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution so that Congress can, in fact, enact changes to the underlying farm bill and provide a more predictable and responsible safety net for our farmers and ranchers throughout this Nation. There will be tax relief, and there will be significant tax relief. But while the President is correct that the budget surplus, to the extent that it exists, is the American people's money, it is also the American people's farm problem, the American people's education problem, the American people's debt reduction problem, the American people's crisis in any number of other areas which must be addressed in a thoughtful and responsible manner in the course of putting together this budget resolution. It is my hope, rather than this unending partisan head knocking that has gone on here for far too long, that in fact we can reach some bipartisanship in the creation of this budget resolution which will set the framework then for the budget and tax discussions for the remainder of this 107th Congress. It makes no sense to me that there has been such a lack of willingness to negotiate, such a lack of willingness to bring both sides together in a bipartisan fashion. What we have here is the people's budget problem. It is one that is solvable if people of good faith will work together in a constructive fashion, understanding there is give-and-take that will be necessary on both sides. It seems to me what is not constructive, what is not helpful, is where either side takes a ``my way or the highway,'' ``nothing is negotiable,'' ``one side has all the wisdom in the world'' kind of approach, either to agricultural policy or to any other aspect, any other component of the budget issues facing us in America today. So I look forward to offering this amendment and to continuing debate in the future on the financial aspects of what will be required to bring rural America into the level of prosperity and opportunity that the rest of America has enjoyed and experienced over this past decade. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the veterans community of Aberdeen on the opening, on April 11, 2001, of their new Aberdeen Community Based Outpatient Clinic. This important event brings the health benefits that our veterans so richly deserve closer to home. I would like to commend Ron Porzio, the chief operating officer of the Veterans Administration Medical and Regional Office Center in Sioux Falls, the area veterans service officers, Brown County Veterans Service Officer Tom Gohn, veterans service organizations and the Aberdeen area veterans who have done such an outstanding job of making this project a reality. I was pleased to hear that Avera United Clinic was named the provider for the new VA outpatient clinic in Aberdeen. Avera has made a solid investment in the community and the state, and it was only logical that the clinic should provide quality health care services to our veterans in the Aberdeen area. This is good news for veterans in northeastern South Dakota because they will be able to receive many medical services at the clinic without having to drive several hours to the Sioux Falls veterans hospital. Congratulations also need to go to Avera St. Luke's Hospital, Dr. Steve Redmond, Physician's Assistant Kevin Vaughan, Clinic Administrator Leonard Severson, the clinic's support staff, and CR Associates on their new partnership with the VA. Veterans are our country's heroes, and their selfless actions will inspire generations of Americans yet to come. Our country must honor its commitments to veterans, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is the smart thing to do. I will continue to lead efforts to ensure that our nation's military retirees and veterans receive the benefits they were promised years ago. While I am pleased with some improvements in military health care funding passed into law last year, I am concerned that more needs to be done. Assuredly, I will continue to fight for military retirees and veterans programs throughout this session of Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to offer my hope for the continued success of the Nagorno Karabagh negotiations. On April 3, the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia will meet in Key West, FL, to continue their dialogue on the Nagorno Karabagh region, an area that is essential for the continued stability of the Caucasus. President Heidar Aliyev of Azerbaijan and President Robert Kocharian of Armenia started a direct dialogue in 1999 and have met over a dozen times in an attempt to bring peace and stability to the South Caucasus. Their upcoming talks in Key West are a continuation of the most recent set of meetings that included French President Jacques Chirac. My hope is that the United States, France, and Russia--working directly with the two presidents--can increase the potential for resolving the conflict over Nagorno Karabagh.