Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, few issues have caught the public's attention more than prescription drugs, and few are more deserving of Congress' attention. We live at a time when we can clearly discern remarkable benefits from all manner of drugs. It is nothing short of miraculous when we consider the relative ease and success of today's treatment of common disorders, as compared with that of only two or three generations ago. When World War II began, for example, penicillin and other similar antibiotics were known only to a small number of scientists. At the conclusion of the War in 1945, penicillin was widely available, used not only for battle wounds but for infectious diseases in the general public as well. Patients with high blood pressure or high cholesterol levels were, at best, only partially and inadequately treated in the 1940s and 1950s. Now success is the rule, rather than the exception. Calvin Coolidge's son died in 1924 as a result of a blister and a skin infection after playing tennis at the White House. An infection such as that today would be treated as simple, outpatient therapy. While these examples are noteworthy and provide us with a valuable perspective of times gone by, the hard, cold fact is that many of these modern miracles are still out of the reach of too many American citizens. They simply cannot afford the drugs that might so often prove lifesaving, because of either no insurance or lack of drug coverage within their insurance. Recent studies indicate that if you go to virtually any other industrialized democracy, the cost of prescription drugs is about half what it is in the United States. We pay about double what anybody else in the industrialized world pays. That to me is so utterly unacceptable and unfair. When Medicare was created 35 years ago, its benefits were based on private sector coverage, which rarely included prescription drugs. Now, however, virtually all private sector plans include coverage for prescription drugs, while Medicare does not. As a result, many millions of Americans, both Medicare age and younger have either inadequate or no prescription drug insurance at all. A byproduct of no coverage is that these patients wind up paying the highest rates of anyone--an average of 15 percent more than those with insurance. Many of these uninsureds, including the seniors often called ``The Greatest Generation'' are not filling prescriptions because of their cost, choosing between food and medicine. Or they split pills in half to make them go farther. This is shameful. These are very real every day problems that beg for help. I strongly believe that all Medicare beneficiaries deserve affordable coverage and financial protection as prescription drugs costs grow at double-digit rates. Astronomical drug prices have come hand-in-hand with the great improvements in drug therapy. Spending for prescription drugs in the United States doubled between 1990 and 1998. In each of the 5 years between 1993 and 1998, prescription drug spending increased by an average of 12.4 percent. In 1999, the drug spending increase was 19 percent and just last year we saw another double digit increase. My office recently completed a three-year statewide survey of prescription drug prices in South Dakota, using a sample of the most heavily prescribed drugs for seniors. I was astonished to find that over 60 percent of the drugs' prices grew at a pace that exceeded the cost-of- living adjustment provided by Social Security, which many Medicare beneficiaries rely on to meet their daily financial needs. In fact, 30 percent of the drugs increased at a pace that was double that of the COLA. In response to evidence such as this, along with having heard from thousands of concerned South Dakotans affected by skyrocketing drug prices, I have recommitted myself to finding a solution for the prescription drug needs of all Medicare beneficiaries. As such, I have reintroduced two bills that comprise the main pillars of my prescription drug plan: the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 2001, and the Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice for Consumers Act of 2001. I don't proclaim these proposals to be the magic bullet that solves all of our nation's prescription drug concerns but they are sensible, financially reasonable approaches that should be a part of an overall prescription drug plan for Medicare beneficiaries. The Fairness bill would provide Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drugs at the same low prices that drug manufacturers offer their most favored customers. As well, I strongly believe we cannot develop a financially feasible prescription drug benefit without maximizing the utilization of generic drugs. My proposal would increase access and choice in Federal programs by encouraging greater usage of generic pharamaceuticals as a safe, less costly alternative to an often expensive brand-name pharmaceutical. Generic pharmaceutical drugs have been shown to save consumers between 25 percent and 60 percent on their average prescription drug and this plan would greatly benefit many of the most vulnerable members of society. I do believe Congress needs to create a universal, voluntary drug benefit in the Medicare program, one that provides all Medicare beneficiaries with affordable coverage for drug costs. Perhaps most importantly for South Dakota's Medicare beneficiaries, the plan must ensure access for beneficiaries in rural and hard-to-serve areas including incentives to rural pharmacies and the private entity serving those areas to ensure rapid delivery of prescription drugs. I believe that these efforts are both comprehensive and achievable in the 107th Congress, and I will work closely with my colleagues to accomplish my personal goal of ensuring access to affordable prescription drugs for all Medicare beneficiaries both in South Dakota and around the Nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today marks National Agriculture Day. Unfortunately, what should be a celebration is instead overshadowed by the grim reality that many of the hardworking families producing food for this Nation and world are having a difficult time making ends meet. I salute our farmers and ranchers for many reasons. First, Americans spend less than anyone in the world on their grocery bill. Roughly 11 percent of our household income is spent on food, and it takes a mere 38 days to earn enough income to pay a food bill for the entire year. We truly enjoy the most nutritious, affordable, and stable food supply in the world. Furthermore, the American economic engine depends upon a strong agricultural sector to run on all cylinders. Indeed the agricultural economy is central to my State's prosperity or adversity. According to South Dakota State University, the multiplied value of agriculture's impact on South Dakota's economy was $16 billion in 1999, one-fourth of our total economic output and more than double that of any other industry in my State. I believe the public institutions and private businesses that lay the foundation for rural communities thrive only when we have a strong base of independent family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota. Finally, agricultural producers are the day-to-day stewards of our land. Environmental and conservation benefits like clean water and air, rich soil, and diverse wildlife habitat are enjoyed by the public largely due to the care and management of family farmers and ranchers. So, why aren't we truly celebrating National Agriculture Day? Because current economic conditions are poised to squeeze many of South Dakota's 32,500 farmers and ranchers right out of business-- conditions set to reverberate across the entire country. Absent farm aid and long-term farm policy fixes that provide true economic security to family farmers and ranchers, the environmental benefits and food security enjoyed by so many in this country may not survive on a sustained basis. I believe Congress must take two fundamental steps to remedy this situation: modify the farm bill now and strengthen our laws so the marketplace is truly competitive and fair for all. Since 1997, U.S. farmers have experienced a price crisis of enormous proportions, exacerbated by a series of weather-related disasters in many regions of the Nation. Surplus crop production, both here and abroad, weak global demand, marketplace concentration, and an inadequate farm income safety net are prime reasons for this price crisis. Moreover, given the input-intensive nature of production agriculture, many farmers and ranchers are paying more each year for critical inputs like fuel and fertilizer. Corn and wheat farmers in South Dakota may be forced to pay up to twice per acre for fertilizer this year, and still not cover enough acres to boost yields to profit-producing levels. This situates farmers in a price-cost squeeze making it nearly impossible to earn income that covers total expenses. As a result of an inadequate farm bill, Congress has enacted multi- billion dollar disaster programs in the last 3 years--a record $28 billion in fiscal year 2000. USDA economists predict 2001 may be the worst year ever. Without supplemental income or emergency aid, USDA estimates that net farm income in 2001 could approach its lowest level since 1984. Clearly, the 1996 farm bill fails to provide a meaningful, fiscally-responsible, safety-net for farmers when prices are poor on an annual and sustained basis. I am concerned that the administration's budget blueprint apparently does not grasp the economic obstacles facing the Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, as illustrated by the fact that the budget includes zero funding for emergency aid or a farm bill rewrite. This seems ironic, since every major farm group has sent myself and others on the Senate Budget Committee a letter agreeing that roughly $10 billion per year will be needed to modify the farm bill for future years, and that around $9 billion is needed in fiscal year 2001 to offset income losses due to low prices and failed farm safety-net policies. Already, these farm groups and some Members of Congress are suggesting that we will simply assemble a fourth consecutive aid package for farmers in 2001. I will support this imperative aid when the time comes, but suggest American farmers and taxpayers deserve better. These ad hoc emergency bills, totaling billions of dollars each year, are a poor excuse for a long term policy fix. I believe Congress can and should amend current farm policy immediately to provide a more predictable, secure safety-net for farmers now. One farm bill alternative I have introduced is S. 130, the Flexible Fallow farm bill amendment. Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE) has introduced an identical bill in the House. Under my Flex Fallow bill--an idea developed by two South Dakota agricultural producers--farmers voluntarily devoting part of their total cropland acreage to a conservation use receive greater price support on their remaining crop production. My proposal embodies the planting flexibility so popular under ``Freedom to Farm,'' yet strengthens the underlying farm income safety net. In fact, my Flex Fallow bill has been endorsed by Iowa State agricultural economist Neil Harl, who believes the proposal works in a market-oriented fashion and said Flex Fallow ``is the missing link to the 1996 Farm Bill.'' Furthermore, I believe agricultural producers want to derive income from the marketplace, and in order to assure that can happen, Congress must restore fair competition to crop and livestock markets. The forces of marketplace concentration are squeezing independent farmers and ranchers out of profit opportunities. The livestock market is one case in point. Meatpacker ownership and captive supply arrangements tend to transpire outside the cash market. As a result, the process of bidding in an open fashion for the purpose of buying slaughter livestock--which is central to competition--is fading away. As such, livestock producers--who depend upon competitive bidding to gain a fair price--are forced to either enter into contractual, ownership, or marketing arrangements with a packer or find themselves left out of market opportunities. I have authored a bipartisan bill, S. 142, with Senators Grassley, Thomas, and Daschle to forbid meatpackers from engaging in these anticompetitive buying practices. While my legislation is just one of many steps that should be taken to bolster our laws to protect true market competition, I believe Congress should move to address this issue in earnest. Former President Eisenhower once said, ``farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from a farm.'' Because we live in a country where the food is safe and affordable, and the environment is not taken for granted, perhaps some have forgotten President Eisenhower's simple yet honest-to-goodness words. So today, let us not overlook the critical role farmers and ranchers play in weaving the economic, social, and environmental fabric of this country. Instead, I join all Americans to salute farmers and ranchers on National Agriculture Day. And I invite all Americans to support efforts to ensure a brighter future for the families who put food on our tables every day.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to condemn an act of mindless destruction by a regime known for its intolerance. I am referring to the reported destruction of the two ancient statues of Buddha carried out by the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the Taliban's call for complete elimination of all artifacts in the region. The Bamiyan Buddha statues were priceless artifacts. They stood for centuries as guardians of the silk route that connected the ancient Greek and Roman Empires to Asia. Once one of the most cosmopolitan regions in the world, Afghanistan is now one of the most intolerant and repressive nations due to the actions of the ruling Taliban faction. The destruction of these 1,500- year-old statues was ordered and carried out for fear that they would be used for idol worship. Destroying those creations because of an irrational fear motivated by intolerance of other cultures and religions should be condemned by thoughtful people everywhere. The country of Afghanistan and the global community has lost two of its greatest treasures, and the world is poorer for it. We cannot tolerate the willful destruction of international treasures that are a part of the world's heritage. People of all faiths and nationalities, including Muslim communities around the world, have condemned this action. It is imperative that the United States Senate join the people and governments around the world in condemning these senseless acts of destruction, and call on the Taliban regime to immediately cease the destruction of other Pre- Islamic relics.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend the work of Ms. Mary Hickey of Aberdeen, SD, for her over twenty years of outstanding service on behalf of the taxpayers of South Dakota. As an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, Mary has been the absolute model of a public servant and an invaluable asset to my office during the last several years. It is with regret that I announce that she will be leaving South Dakota and moving to Nebraska, where I'm sure she will continue her exemplary service. Mary began her career with the IRS in 1980 as a Contact Service Representative in Rapid City, SD. She became a Tax Auditor in 1986, and in 1996 she was promoted to Problem Resolution Officer in Aberdeen. During her many years of service to the citizens of South Dakota, she has provided outstanding assistance, helping to make sense of what can often be a complicated federal bureaucracy. On more than one occasion, I've heard my staff raving about the amount of time, commitment, and cooperation Mary put forth to serve and represent the taxpayers of South Dakota. Mary's accomplishments are numerous. During the last few years, Mary developed new and innovative techniques to aid in the restructuring of the Taxpayer Advocate Service, a project of the IRS' Problem Resolution Office. For all of her outstanding work, Mary has received numerous, well-deserved IRS awards and accolades. Mary also excels in her community, and is active with the United Way of Northeastern South Dakota, having served as the Board Secretary for the past four years. As Board Secretary, Mary participates in oversight of the organization and has helped to raise over $600,000 annually to support 19 local charities. It is an honor for me to share Mary's accomplishments with my colleagues and to publicly commend her for serving South Dakota so excellently. Alas, South Dakota's loss is Nebraska's gain and I'm sure she will provide that state with the same outstanding performance she has demonstrated here.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, last week I met with South Dakota National Guard Adjutant General Phil Killey and a group of about 30 men and women from the South Dakota Guard and Reserves. Almost every community in our state benefits from the work of these Guardsmen and Reservists. For example, Guard units helped clean up the debris from last August's windstorm that hit Spearfish and Mitchell. Guard units in Aberdeen and Brookings spearheaded city-wide clean up efforts, and soldiers in Brookings even sponsored underprivileged children during the holiday season. The Guard also was instrumental in fighting the Jasper fire in the Black Hills last summer. The list goes on. From Aberdeen to Yankton, the Guard and Reserves are active members of the South Dakota community. In addition to the support the Guard and Reserves give to South Dakota, they have also supported overseas operations including those in Central America, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. The South Dakota Air Guard is currently preparing for its mission later this year, where it will patrol the ``No-Fly Zone'' in Iraq. Most South Dakotans know at least one of the 4,500 current members of the South Dakota Guard and Reserves or the thousands of former Guardsmen and Reservists. Sometimes, the connection is even more direct. Before joining the Army, my oldest son was a member of the South Dakota Army Guard in Yankton. General Killey reported that South Dakota ranks third in the nation in the readiness of its Guard and Reserve units. South Dakota's units are also tops in the nation in the quality of its new recruits. I commend the South Dakota Guard and Reserves for their continued excellence. National rankings only confirm the quality that has come to be expected of the Guard and Reserve of a great state. However, recruiting and keeping the best of the best in the South Dakota National Guard and Reserves is becoming more of a challenge as our military's operations tempo has remained high while the number of active duty military forces has decreased. This tempo places significant pressure on members of the reserve component and those who employ them as they experience greater training and participation demands. That is why I am joining Senator Mike DeWine in introducing targeted tax relief for Guardsmen, Reservists, and those who employ them. The legislation, called the Reserve Component Tax Assistance Act, will allow Guardsmen and Reservists to claim deductions for travel, meals, and lodging when they travel away from home and remain overnight to attend National Guard and Reserve meetings. A significant portion of the Guard and Reserve in South Dakota must travel at least 40 miles for training and meetings. The second part of this legislation gives their employers a tax credit when the Reservists and Guardsmen are called up for a contingency operation. Often, these men and women will be gone months in support of overseas military efforts, leaving employers in a difficult position. This year the Air Guard will be deployed to Iraq, and members of the Army National Guard will be deployed to Bosnia next year. Our bipartisan legislation helps to minimize the economic impact by giving a maximum tax credit per employee of $2000. Each employer would be eligible for a maximum credit of $7500. This credit will help an estimated 1,100 to 1,300 businesses in our state who employ Guardsmen and Reservists. Our legislation provides much needed tax relief to Guardsmen and Reservists, and the employers who support them, and I will continue to do all I can to support our National Guard and Reserves.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as I travel my state of South Dakota and meet with veterans, I am reminded of the very core of what the Founding Fathers meant when they talked about America's citizen soldiers who serve as the bulwark of defending our democracy and freedom. The sacrifices of the men and women who served this nation in time of war are a dramatic story that we need to tell to future generations. We need to remind younger generations of the sacrifice of the quiet heroes who have served our nation in the military service. We need to remind them that freedom isn't really free. Throughout our nation's proud history, people have made profound sacrifices to preserve liberty and democracy. I have had the privilege this past year of honoring the South Dakotans who so bravely defended the seeds of democracy in the foreign soil of Korea and remember those who fought and died for democracy. In ceremonies across my state, I have had the honor of presenting the Korean War Service Medals as a long-overdue expression of gratitude from the American public and the South Korean government. It may have taken 50 years for us to properly recognize these veterans for their sacrifices in Korea. But there is no time limit on their patriotism or our country's gratitude. Unfortunately, it has also taken too long for our government to fully honor the commitment made to our veterans for educational benefits and lifetime health care. I am pleased to report that Congress has finally begun to honor additional commitments made to veterans nationwide. We all know the history: for decades, men and women who joined the military were promised educational benefits and lifetime health care coverage for themselves and their families. Many of the veterans we honor today were told, in effect, ``If you disrupt your family, if you work for low pay, if you endanger your life and limb, our nation will in turn guarantee an opportunity for an education and lifetime health benefits.'' Those promises have too often not been kept, not only to our veterans but also our military retirees, and that is threatening our national security. Veterans are our nation's most effective recruiters. However, inadequate education benefits and poor health care options make it difficult for these men and women to encourage the younger generation to serve in today's voluntary service. We are blessed to have unprecedented federal budget surpluses, and the only question is whether veterans health care and educational benefits should be a priority instead of an afterthought. Veterans from around the nation have been calling on Congress to provide the VA with adequate funding to meet the health care needs for all veterans. Without additional funding, VA facilities will be unable to deliver the necessary health care services to our veterans population. For a number of years, I have worked with veterans to increase flat- line appropriations for veterans' health care. Thanks to the grass roots efforts of veterans, we were successful two years ago in getting a historic $1.7 billion increase for VA medical care. We fought last year for another $1.4 billion increase. While these increases will help relieve some of the VA's budgetary constraints, I believe that more needs to be done to make up for those years of budgetary neglect, as well as to keep pace with rising costs of health care. Another priority for me this year will be to continue to improve educational benefits for veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill has been one of the most effective tools in recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest in the military. It has also been a critical component in the transition of veterans to civilian life. Unfortunately, the current GI Bill fails to keep pace with the rising costs of higher education. On the first day of this legislative year, I joined Senator Susan Collins in introducing legislation to bring the GI Bill in the 21st Century by creating a benchmark level of education benefits that automatically covers inflation to meet the increasing costs of higher education. Our concept is a very simple one: at the very least, GI Bill benefits should be equal to the average cost of a commuter student attending a four-year university. Currently, less than one-half of the men and women who contribute $1200 of their pay to qualify for the GI Bill actually use these benefits. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act--S. 131--has broad bipartisan support and the support of an unprecedented partnership of veterans groups and higher education organizations. My bipartisan ``Keep Our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act'' called for the government to fulfill its obligation of lifetime health care for military retirees and their dependents. While I am pleased that last year's enactment of the TRICARE-for-Life program begins to address problems with military retiree health care, there is more work that needs to be done. In fact, a recent federal court of appeals ruling finally supported what we have been saying all along: that the government has not lived up to its contract with millions of military retirees who were told they would receive lifetime health care in return for 20 years of service in the military. That is why I am once again working with Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Jeff Bingaman to finish the job we started last year and fulfill our country's commitment. Honoring our commitment to active duty personnel, military retirees, and veterans is of special importance to me for a number of reasons. My oldest son, Brooks, currently serves in the Army and tells me firsthand how broken promises impact the morale of active duty personnel and their families. Finally, an issue that needs to be addressed this year is concurrent receipt. I find it indefensible that our government forces men and women who fought for our country and are disabled as a result of it to choose between retirement pay and disability compensation. This nickel- and-diming of our country's heroes must stop, and I recently joined Senator Harry Reid in introducing the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001, S. 170. I am hopeful that we will be able to continue on the progress made last year on Concurrent Receipt and finally make this long-overdue correction for 437,000 disabled veterans nationwide. 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's the right thing to do, but also because it's the smart thing to do. I consider myself fortunate to live in our democracy, and I am filled with a sense of patriotism each day as I travel to work and see the United States Capitol come into view. In this city that is filled with monuments to the heroism of our Founding Fathers and the men and women who have served to protect our freedoms, I pledge that I will continue to fight to make veterans issues a priority in Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to the Indian people for the recent loss of life and property due to the recent earthquake in their country. On January 26, the people of Gujarat in western India were hit with an earthquake the size and devastation of that which hit San Francisco in 1906. The earthquake in Gujarat killed more than 30,000, injured more than 100,000, and displaced more than a half million men, women, and children. My thoughts and prayers, and those of many Americans, are with them at this difficult time. The people of India have been valuable friends to America, and a number of Indians call this country their home. Unfortunately, tragic events like these show how quickly loved ones and friends can be take from us. However, it is also through despair and tears that people often find humanity and caring. The damage to the region is expected to exceed $5.5 billion. In the face of such a catastrophe, it is imperative that the global community actively respond. I am heartened to see the outpouring of assistance that nations around the globe, and countless non-governmental organizations, have offered to India. Our own government will continue to offer our support to the victims of this earthquake, and I encourage President Bush to offer any needed additional assistance as they begin the process of rebuilding shattered homes and lives.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the achievements of a true friend of American agriculture, Grant B. Buntrock, a native of my home State of South Dakota. Grant died at his home on Friday, March 9, 2001. Grant made his mark on American agriculture all throughout his 38 years of service. He was honored to be selected by President Clinton as the administrator of the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, ASCS. Through reorganization, he later became the first administrator of the Farm Service Agency, where he served until his retirement in 1997. His training to be the agency's administrator came through his many ASCS positions. From 1977 through 1980, he served as Assistant Deputy Administrator, State and County Operations, DASCO. In 1981, he became the director of the Cotton, Grain and Rice Price Support Division, where he administered all support programs. His other assignments included Director, Price Support and Loan Division and DASCO staff assistant, as well as assignments to the Programs Operations Division and the Bin Storage Division. But perhaps the most important position of all was his tenure as a program specialist in the Brown County ASCS office and his position as county office manager in the Day County ASCS office. He was on the front line, dealing directly with South Dakota's farmers and ranchers. His friends are confident that is what guided him in making his daily decisions on how our farm programs should function. While working day- to-day in the Department of Agriculture, he never forgot for whom he worked. The American farmer. In the spring of 1995, Secretary Glickman came to South Dakota to see first hand the devastation our State experienced with severe flooding, the likes of which our State has never seen. The Secretary gave Grant the marching orders and he fulfilled those orders. Streamline disaster assistance, and get the help to those in need. Again, the American farmer. He is going back to his roots, in Columbia, South Dakota. He was born and raised on a wheat and cattle farm in Columbia, where he graduated from high school and later attended South Dakota State University in Brookings. He served his country in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1957. I offer my condolences to his wife, Donna, his mother, Marietta, and his children, LeAnn, Janelle, Gregory, his stepsons, Stephen, and Gregory, and his seven grandchildren. They truly can be proud of Grant's service to his country. South Dakota and the Nation has lost a true friend of agriculture. But a friend of agriculture who has left many a mark for years to come.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to and honor Paul Nash. Paul has been a highly-valued member of my legislative staff for more than 4 years, and I wanted to take this opportunity to publicly thank him for all his years of hard work and dedication to the people of South Dakota. Paul will no longer be working on my staff after next week, and I, along with my entire staff, will miss his contributions greatly. Paul was one of the original members of my Senate staff when I began serving in this body in January of 1997. Paul has worked on a number of issues in my office, and for the past several years has been my legislative assistant responsible for staffing my Banking Committee assignment, as well as taxes, telecommunications, campaign finance reform, government employees and labor issues. Paul has been an instrumental part of some of my key legislative accomplishments since I have had the honor of serving in the Senate, including passage of the Johnson amendment to the Financial Services Modernization Act, and legislation to provide access to local television stations for rural satellite owners. Paul has also been actively involved in helping to produce bipartisan legislation in the past Congress and at the start of this Congress to reauthorize the Export Administration Act. His efforts have earned him the respect of many people he has worked with, including other Senators and staff of the Banking Committee. Paul has also worked closely with members of the South Dakota financial services community, and I know he will be missed by them as well. Paul's efforts on telecommunication issues for rural America, as well as his hard work on many other issues, such as campaign finance reform and tax policy have also been important contributions to my legislative efforts of the past 4 years. He has been a true public servant for me, the people of South Dakota and the Nation. I know Paul's parents, family, friends and colleagues are all very proud of him. Paul has a very bright future, and I know he will continue to succeed at whatever he chooses to do. On behalf of my wife Barbara and I, and my entire staff, I want to thank Paul Nash for his dedication and years of hard work for me and the people of South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, our country must honor its commitments to military retirees and veterans, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the smart thing to do. We all know the history: for decades, men and women who joined the military were promised lifetime health care coverage for themselves and their families. They were told, in effect, if you disrupt your family, if you work for low pay, if you endanger your life and limb, we will in turn guarantee lifetime health benefits. In my own family, my oldest son is in the Army and has served tours of duty in Bosnia and Kosovo. I fully appreciate what inadequate health care and broken promises can do to the morale of military families. Military retirees and veterans are our nation's most effective recruiters. Unfortunately, poor health care options make it difficult for these men and women to encourage the younger generation to make a career of the military. In fact, in South Dakota, I was talking to military personnel and talking to retirees who are loyal and patriotic, who have paid a price second to none for our nation's liberty, and they told me: ``Tim, I can't in good faith tell my nephews, my children, young people whom I encounter, that they ought to serve in the U.S. military, that they ought to make a career of that service because I see what the Congress has done to its commitment to me, to my family, to my neighbors.'' I am pleased that last year we made historic improvements in health care coverage for the approximately 12,600 military retirees living in South Dakota. In the 106th Congress, I introduced the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act to restore the broken promise of lifetime health care for military retirees and dependents. My bipartisan legislation received the endorsement from most military retiree and veterans organizations and called for military retirees to have the option of staying in their TRICARE military health care program or electing to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. I offered my legislation as an amendment to last year's defense bill and received 52 votes. Although the amendment failed on a procedural motion, I was able to convince my colleagues to include one part of my bill--the expansion of TRICARE to Medicare-eligible military retirees-- in both the Senate defense bill and the final version signed into law. While I am pleased that last year's defense bill begins to address problems with military retiree health care, there is more work that needs to be done. That is why I am once again working with fellow Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to continue the progress we've made at living up to our country's commitment to those who serve in the military. Today, I am reintroducing the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act to finish the job we started last year. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Jeff Bingaman and Senator Olympia Snowe. Similar legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Ronnie Shows and Representative Charlie Norwood already has overwhelming bipartisan support, and I expect a number of Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate to once again support my bill. My legislation addresses the pressing health care needs of military retirees under age 65. Thanks to our efforts last year, retirees over 65 soon will be able to choose their own doctor and be covered by Medicare and TRICARE as a secondary payer. However, retirees under age 65 must continue coverage under a TRICARE program that offers care at military treatment facilities on a space available basis. Nationwide, base closures and downsizing have made access to these military bases difficult. For many military retirees in South Dakota and other rural states, it is next to impossible to find a doctor participating in TRICARE, and these men and women are forced to drive hundreds of miles just for basic health care. In addition, retirees who entered the service prior to June 7, 1956, when space-available care for military retirees was enacted, actually have seen much of their promised benefits taken away. Under the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, the United States government would pay the full cost of FEHBP enrollment to this most elderly group of retirees. Congress has the unique opportunity to use a portion of the budget surplus to improve the quality of life for our military retirees, veterans, and active duty personnel. I have always believed that our nation's defense is only as good as the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Broken promises of health care, retirement benefits, education incentives, and pay have eroded the morale of the most valuable assets to our national security. I am hopeful that members of both parties will join me once again making these issues a priority-- instead of an afterthought--during this session of Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, our country must honor its commitments to military retirees and veterans, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the smart thing to do. We all know the history: for decades, men and women who joined the military were promised lifetime health care coverage for themselves and their families. They were told, in effect, if you disrupt your family, if you work for low pay, if you endanger your life and limb, we will in turn guarantee lifetime health benefits. In my own family, my oldest son is in the Army and has served tours of duty in Bosnia and Kosovo. I fully appreciate what inadequate health care and broken promises can do to the morale of military families. Military retirees and veterans are our nation's most effective recruiters. Unfortunately, poor health care options make it difficult for these men and women to encourage the younger generation to make a career of the military. In fact, in South Dakota, I was talking to military personnel and talking to retirees who are loyal and patriotic, who have paid a price second to none for our nation's liberty, and they told me: ``Tim, I can't in good faith tell my nephews, my children, young people whom I encounter, that they ought to serve in the U.S. military, that they ought to make a career of that service because I see what the Congress has done to its commitment to me, to my family, to my neighbors.'' I am pleased that last year we made historic improvements in health care coverage for the approximately 12,600 military retirees living in South Dakota. In the 106th Congress, I introduced the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act to restore the broken promise of lifetime health care for military retirees and dependents. My bipartisan legislation received the endorsement from most military retiree and veterans organizations and called for military retirees to have the option of staying in their TRICARE military health care program or electing to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. I offered my legislation as an amendment to last year's defense bill and received 52 votes. Although the amendment failed on a procedural motion, I was able to convince my colleagues to include one part of my bill--the expansion of TRICARE to Medicare-eligible military retirees-- in both the Senate defense bill and the final version signed into law. While I am pleased that last year's defense bill begins to address problems with military retiree health care, there is more work that needs to be done. That is why I am once again working with fellow Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to continue the progress we've made at living up to our country's commitment to those who serve in the military. Today, I am reintroducing the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act to finish the job we started last year. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Jeff Bingaman and Senator Olympia Snowe. Similar legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Ronnie Shows and Representative Charlie Norwood already has overwhelming bipartisan support, and I expect a number of Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate to once again support my bill. My legislation addresses the pressing health care needs of military retirees under age 65. Thanks to our efforts last year, retirees over 65 soon will be able to choose their own doctor and be covered by Medicare and TRICARE as a secondary payer. However, retirees under age 65 must continue coverage under a TRICARE program that offers care at military treatment facilities on a space available basis. Nationwide, base closures and downsizing have made access to these military bases difficult. For many military retirees in South Dakota and other rural states, it is next to impossible to find a doctor participating in TRICARE, and these men and women are forced to drive hundreds of miles just for basic health care. In addition, retirees who entered the service prior to June 7, 1956, when space-available care for military retirees was enacted, actually have seen much of their promised benefits taken away. Under the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, the United States government would pay the full cost of FEHBP enrollment to this most elderly group of retirees. Congress has the unique opportunity to use a portion of the budget surplus to improve the quality of life for our military retirees, veterans, and active duty personnel. I have always believed that our nation's defense is only as good as the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Broken promises of health care, retirement benefits, education incentives, and pay have eroded the morale of the most valuable assets to our national security. I am hopeful that members of both parties will join me once again making these issues a priority-- instead of an afterthought--during this session of Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on Monday, January 22, introduced S. 142, the Rural America Needs Competition to Help Every Rancher Act, legislation to prohibit meatpackers from owning livestock prior to slaughter. My bill enjoys bipartisan support from Republican Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Craig Thomas of Wyoming. Senator Tom Daschle cosponsored my bill, as well. We believe this proposal will help restore a competitive bidding process to the cash slaughter-livestock marketplace by strengthening the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The growing, unabated trend of agribusiness consolidation and concentration--a problem really sweeping across this entire nation--is one of the prime concerns of South Dakota family farmers and ranchers. However, concern about meatpacker concentration is not new in the United States. Newspaper cartoons in the 1880s depicted companies that forced the pooling of livestock prior to any purchase agreement as counterproductive ``beef trusts,'' engaging in discriminatory pricing behavior. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate meatpackers to determine if they were leveraging too much power over the marketplace. As a result, the FTC released a report in 1919 stating that the ``Big 5'' meatpackers at that time (Armour, Swift, Morris, Wilson, and Cudahy) dominated the market with ``monopolistic control of the American meat industry.'' The FTC also found these meatpackers owned stockyards, rail car lines, cold storage plants, and other essential facilities for distributing food. These findings led to the Packers Consent Decree of 1920 which prohibited the Big 5 packers from engaging in retail sales of meat and forced them to divest of ownership interests in stockyards and rail lines. Subsequently, Congress enacted the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 which prohibited meatpackers from engaging in unfair, discriminatory, and deceptive pricing practices. Unfortunately--veiled behind what some mistakenly describe as inevitability--the meatpacking industry is once again crusading to take free enterprise and market access away from independent livestock producers. On January 1, 2001, Tyson Foods declared its intention to acquire IBP, and the Justice Department recently accepted Tyson's assertion that the deal poses no antitrust violation. I am very disappointed with the Justice Department's decision, and believe their inaction on this matter makes it imperative for Congress to act. I recently met with executives of Tyson and IBP to discuss the ramifications of this merger. The CEO of Tyson made a provocative promise that Tyson will not replicate its current practice of owning livestock--they now own swine and poultry--after buying IBP. Essentially, Tyson alleges they will not own cattle before slaughter. Yet, it has been reported that Tyson would only make that promise for ten years into the future, and the company has declined to comment on what purchasing practices a merged Tyson-IBP would utilize after that time. While this may be a short-term panacea to satisfy Federal agencies and elected officials, livestock producers--particularly cattle ranchers--are in business for the long-term. Ten years can go by awful quickly in the cattle business. Moreover, I believe--as do most South Dakotans--that doing and saying are two very different things. Indeed, Lee Swenson, President of the National Farmers Union, has called upon Tyson to issue a written commitment to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Tyson won't go into the cattle owning business. Consequently, my bill to forbid packer ownership of livestock restores healthy competition to the cash marketplace and ensures that Tyson and other vertical integrators won't engage in packer ownership. Agricultural concentration is not inevitable, it is sweeping the rural landscape because of the choices we make. Given the Justice Department's reluctance to address this merger, Congress must take some responsibility to recommend ways to strengthen our competition and anti-trust laws. I believe S. 142 is one step Congress can take. Last year, several major farm organizations endorsed my bipartisan effort to prohibit meatpackers from owning livestock prior to slaughter. I would like to thank them for their support. These grassroots groups include the National Farmers Union, South Dakota Farmers Union, the South Dakota Cattlemens Association, the Iowa Pork Producers Association, Illinois Farm Bureau, the Center for Rural Affairs, the Organization for Competitive Markets, and the Ranchers--Cattlemens Action Legal Fund, R- CALF. The members of these organizations believe that packer ownership and captive supply arrangements by meatpackers result in less competition for all sellers in the market, even though producers or feeders who have these arrangements often enter into them voluntarily. As a consequence of having slaughter livestock supplies locked up through captive supplies, meatpackers do not have to bid competitively for all of their slaughter needs. This may depress the marketplace and restrict access to producers and feeders without the arrangements. Packer ownership of livestock increases the likelihood of price manipulation in the marketplace. When packers own livestock, they have the ability to push forward or hold back captive supplies in response to market price. My bipartisan legislation is one way to achieve a more competitive bidding process in the cash market. So today, almost a century after President Teddy Roosevelt used a big stick to give livestock producers a square deal, we again face a choice between corporate takeover of agriculture and a fight for free enterprise. I proudly cast my lot with free-enterprise family farm and ranch agriculture that has served our country so well.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Bingaman, Daschle, Campbell, Inouye, Cochran, Reid, Akaka, and Baucus am introducing legislation to establish an innovative funding mechanism to enhance the ability of Indian tribes to construct, repair, and maintain quality educational facilities. Representatives from tribal schools in my State of South Dakota have been working with tribes nationwide to develop an initiative which I believe will be a positive first step toward addressing the serious crisis we are facing in Indian education. Over 50 percent of the American Indian population in this country is age 24 or younger. Consequently, the need for improved educational programs and facilities, and for training the American Indian workforce is pressing. American Indians have been, and continue to be, disproportionately affected by both poverty and low educational achievement. The high school completion rate for Indian people aged 20 to 24 was 12.5 percent below the national average. American Indian students, on average, have scored far lower on the National Assessment for Education Progress indicators than all other students. By ignoring the most fundamental aspect of education; that is, safe, quality educational facilities, there is little hope of breaking the cycle of low educational achievement, and the unemployment and poverty that result from neglected academic potential. The Indian School Construction Act establishes a bonding authority to use existing tribal education funds for bonds in the municipal finance market which currently serves local governments across the Nation. Instead of funding construction projects directly, these existing funds will be leveraged through bonds to fund substantially more tribal school construction, maintenance and repair projects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates the tribal school construction and repair backlog at over $1 billion. Confounding this backlog, inflation and facility deterioration severely increases this amount. The administration's school construction request for fiscal year 2001 was over $62 million. In this budgetary climate, I believe every avenue for efficiently stretching the Federal dollar should be explored. Tribal schools in my State and around the country address the unique learning needs and styles of Indian students, with sensitivity to Native cultures, ultimately promoting higher academic achievement. There are strong historical and moral reasons for continued support of tribal schools. In keeping with our special trust responsibility to sovereign Indian nations, we need to promote the self-determination and self-sufficiency of Indian communities. Education is absolutely vital to this effort. Allowing the continued deterioration and decay of tribal schools through lack of funding would violate the Government's commitment and responsibility to Indian nations and only slow the progress of self-sufficiency. I urge my colleagues to closely examine the Indian School Construction Act and join me in working to make this innovative funding mechanism a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, while I have cast votes in favor of all 15 of President Bush's nominees to come thus far before the Senate, I rise today to say, sadly, that I cannot vote in favor of Senator John Ashcroft for the office of Attorney General of the United States. My position on Cabinet level nominees during both Republican and Democratic Presidencies has remained the same: a presumption in favor of a President's nomination rests with the nominee, and they should be rejected by the Senate only under extraordinary circumstances. Thus far during the 107th Congress, I have voted in favor of: Paul O'Neill for Treasury Secretary; Spencer Abraham for Energy Secretary; Donald Evans for Commerce Secretary; Donald Rumsfeld for Defense Secretary; Ann Veneman for Agriculture Secretary; Roderick Paige for Education Secretary; Colin Powell for Secretary of State; Melquiades Martinez as Housing and Urban Development Secretary; Anthony Principi as Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Tommy G. Thompson for Secretary of Health and Human Services; Norman Mineta as Transportation Secretary; Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor; Gale Norton as Interior Secretary; and Christine Todd Whitman as Environmental Protection Agency Director. Even though numerous of these people have used positions that are contrary to my own, I have respected the President's nominations, and have cast my votes on all 15 of these instances in favor of the President's nominee. The U.S. Constitution, however, requires the Senate to consider consent or rejection of Cabinet nominees, and the Senate was not intended by the founders of our Nation to be simply a ``rubber stamp'' for any President. I am particularly troubled by this nomination for Attorney General, knowing that office does not serve as ``the President's personal lawyer''--the President has White House counsel for that purpose--but that the Attorney General serves as the peoples' lawyer; he is an advocate for all Americans in our courts of law. I have applauded President Bush's expressions of support for bipartisan Government and the kind of political moderation that will bring Americans together rather than tear them apart. In turn, I have helped organize a ``centrist caucus'' of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and a ``New Democratic'' organization consisting of moderate Democrats committed to working with moderate Republicans. I believe this is the kind of Government the American people want, and that they are weary of political extremism and harsh ideologies of either the left or right. I must conclude, based on testimony in Senate hearings, and from a review of Senator Ashcroft's years in elective office, that this man is the wrong man at the wrong time for the high office of Attorney General. If ever there was a nominee who has committed his years of public service to rejecting bipartisanship and moderation, it is Senator Ashcroft. This nominee has stated repeatedly that he will never be a party to moderation, or to conciliation between the parties. He has consistently mocked the very notion of bipartisanship during his years in the Senate. He is famous for his observation when he says that only two things will be found in the middle of the road--dead skunks and moderates, and I will be neither. How now, can Senator Ashcroft gain the confidence of all the American people that he will be their defender and their advocate? Senator Ashcroft refuses to distance himself from Bob Jones University where he received an honorary degree, despite that institution's harsh criticism of the Pope as ``anti-Christ'' and the Roman Catholic and Mormon religions as ``cults.'' He declines to disavow the Southern Partisan Quarterly Review, a magazine which, incredibly, has defended slavery. He has sponsored as many as seven constitutional amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including one which would outlaw most forms of contraception, and take away a woman's constitutional right to determine for herself whether to have an early abortion, even where rape, incest, or severe physical injury would be involved. Senator Ashcroft's record indicates that he has not always distinguished between his strident advocacy and his willingness to enforce the law of the land. As the Missouri Attorney General, he did all in his power to undermine a voluntary school desegregation plan in St. Louis, denouncing voluntary desegregation as ``an outrage against human decency.'' The St. Louis Post Dispatch described his campaign as ``exploiting and encouraging the worst racist sentiments that exist in the state.'' Perhaps most of all, I am troubled by Senator Ashcroft's handling of the Judge White nomination. After the Pope, in a visit to St. Louis, had convinced Governor Mel Carnahan, Senator Ashcroft's opponent at the time, to not execute a certain Missouri prisoner, Ashcroft saw an opportunity to vilify Carnahan as ``soft on crime.'' One of his strategies was to depict a distinguished and highly regarded African American judge as ``anti-death penalty'' and use the blocking of his nomination to Federal district court as a high profile means of claiming he would be tougher on crime then Governor Carnahan. This despite the fact that Judge White had been endorsed by Republicans and Democrats as well as the Missouri Bar Association and had upheld death sentences at about the same rate as all other members of the Missouri Supreme Court. The very conservative columnist Stuart Taylor, wrote that the Judge White incident alone renders Senator Ashcroft to be ``unfit to be Attorney General.'' Taylor stated, ``The reason is that during an important debate on a sensitive manner, then-Senator Ashcroft abused the power of his office by descending to demagoguery, dishonesty and character assassination.'' I do not contend that Mr. Ashcroft is a racist, but I do believe his handling of this matter was characterized by naked political opportunism, dishonesty, and an utter disregard for justice. I have no illusions about the end result of the vote on the Senate floor; Senator Ashcroft will be confirmed. I have stated my opposition to any filibuster effort on this mater. A filibuster would have resulted in the need for Senator Ashcroft to secure 60 votes rather than 51. While tactically, this might have increased the likelihood of defeating his nomination, it is a process which has never been used on Cabinet confirmations before, although Senator Ashcroft, himself, has used it against sub-Cabinet appointments and has frequently voted against cabinet nominees. I believe President Bush is entitled to a fair, up-and-down vote on his nominee. Although the confirmation is then, virtually certain, I want to make it clear that I will have nothing to do with supporting this particular one of the 16 Presidential nominations to come before the Senate so far. Senator Ashcroft, I believe, is the wrong man to help heal America's divisions, the wrong man to lead the U.S. Department of Justice, and the wrong man to serve as the guardian of the constitutional rights of all the diverse people of our nation. I take my oath to the U.S. Constitution seriously, and I also take my South Dakota values of fairness, and integrity very seriously--for that reason I will vote no on this nomination.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Bingaman, Daschle, Campbell, Inouye, Cochran, Reid, Akaka, and Baucus am introducing legislation to establish an innovative funding mechanism to enhance the ability of Indian tribes to construct, repair, and maintain quality educational facilities. Representatives from tribal schools in my State of South Dakota have been working with tribes nationwide to develop an initiative which I believe will be a positive first step toward addressing the serious crisis we are facing in Indian education. Over 50 percent of the American Indian population in this country is age 24 or younger. Consequently, the need for improved educational programs and facilities, and for training the American Indian workforce is pressing. American Indians have been, and continue to be, disproportionately affected by both poverty and low educational achievement. The high school completion rate for Indian people aged 20 to 24 was 12.5 percent below the national average. American Indian students, on average, have scored far lower on the National Assessment for Education Progress indicators than all other students. By ignoring the most fundamental aspect of education; that is, safe, quality educational facilities, there is little hope of breaking the cycle of low educational achievement, and the unemployment and poverty that result from neglected academic potential. The Indian School Construction Act establishes a bonding authority to use existing tribal education funds for bonds in the municipal finance market which currently serves local governments across the Nation. Instead of funding construction projects directly, these existing funds will be leveraged through bonds to fund substantially more tribal school construction, maintenance and repair projects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates the tribal school construction and repair backlog at over $1 billion. Confounding this backlog, inflation and facility deterioration severely increases this amount. The administration's school construction request for fiscal year 2001 was over $62 million. In this budgetary climate, I believe every avenue for efficiently stretching the Federal dollar should be explored. Tribal schools in my State and around the country address the unique learning needs and styles of Indian students, with sensitivity to Native cultures, ultimately promoting higher academic achievement. There are strong historical and moral reasons for continued support of tribal schools. In keeping with our special trust responsibility to sovereign Indian nations, we need to promote the self-determination and self-sufficiency of Indian communities. Education is absolutely vital to this effort. Allowing the continued deterioration and decay of tribal schools through lack of funding would violate the Government's commitment and responsibility to Indian nations and only slow the progress of self-sufficiency. I urge my colleagues to closely examine the Indian School Construction Act and join me in working to make this innovative funding mechanism a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation as one more step in my fight to combat rising prescription drug prices and reduce the cost of medication for consumers in this country. My legislation, called the Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act of 2001, aims to reduce the cost of prescription medication to American taxpayers and the U.S. government by encouraging the use of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, therapeutically equivalent generic prescription drugs within the federal health care programs, except if the non-generic form is either ordered by the prescribing physician or requested by the patient. The Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act of 2001 establishes a straightforward and cost-effective means of increasing consumers' access and choice to safe, affordable generic prescription drugs under federal health care programs which could result in savings of millions of dollars. The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which spends approximately $18.4 billion providing health insurance coverage to its' estimated nine million enrollees, including employees, retirees and their families, spends nearly twenty percent, $3.6 billion, of their insurance program costs on pharmaceutical benefits alone. This year brought little relief when the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that FEHBP premium increases for the year 2001 were on average 10.5 percent, mostly attributable to the cost increase in prescription drug plans to fill prescriptions with FDA approved, therapeutically equivalent generic prescription drugs. In fact, the rising cost of prescription drugs accounts for about 40 percent of the total rise in premiums for this year alone. In 1997, about one-third of all prescriptions under the FEHBP were for generic drugs. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers the FEHBP, estimated that total costs for prescription drugs would drop by about fifteen percent if half of all prescriptions were for generic drugs. A 1998 study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that generic pharmaceutical substitution saves consumers nationwide approximately eight to ten billion dollars a year. Some FEHBP plans and other federal health care programs do to some extent encourage the use of generic prescription drugs but the practice is not mandatory or universally incorporated into all programs. The Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act simply directs all federal health care programs that provide prescription drug plans to fill prescriptions with FDA approved, therapeutically equivalent generic prescription drugs, except if the non-generic form is either ordered by the prescribing physician or requested by the patient. I believe we can take greater steps to increase the utilization of high-quality, FDA approved generic drugs, which cost between twenty- five and sixty percent less than brand-name drugs, resulting in an estimated average savings of fifteen to thirty dollars on each prescription filled. In fact, independent studies have even estimated that generics provide an average savings of $45.50 for each prescription drug sold. Generic pharmaceutical drugs are widely accepted by both consumers and the medical profession, as the market share held by generic drugs compared to brand-name prescription drugs has more than doubled during the last decade, from approximately nineteen to forty-three percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yet, despite accounting for just over forty percent of the prescriptions drugs dispensed, generic drugs represent only 8 percent of the total dollar volume spent on drugs in this country. Studies have shown that consumers can save an additional $1.32 billion per year for every one percent increase in the use of generic drugs. That is why I strongly believe that generic pharmaceutical utilization can help both consumers and the government reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Since there exists no current coverage for outpatient prescription drugs under the Medicare program, a second component of my bill includes a sense-of-the-Senate that, to the extent feasible, a preference for the safe and cost-effective use of generic drugs be considered in conjunction with any legislation that adds a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. I strongly believe that the utilization of high-quality, safe generic pharmaceutical drugs in a Medicare prescription drug benefit would provide a built in cost control mechanism that would help ensure the economic feasibility and sustainability of any new benefit. And third, the bill I am introducing today works to prevent a tactic used by the brand drug industry to prevent generics from reaching the consumer by convincing state legislatures to pass unwarranted restrictions to the substitution of generic versions of brand name drugs. The campaign that some brand name drug companies lobby in some states is nothing more than an attempt by the brand name companies to protect their market share. The Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act increases the level playing field for generic drugs by requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where appropriate, to determine that a generic pharmaceutical is the therapeutic equivalent of its' brand-name counterpart, and affording national uniformity to that determination. The legislation would also prevent a State from establishing or continuing any requirement that keeps generic pharmaceutical drugs off the market once FDA has determined that a generic drug is ``therapeutically equivalent'' to a brand name drug. This provision will ensure that generic prescription drugs get to the market in a timely fashion and provide consumers with access and choice to low cost, high-quality alternatives. As the year continues, I hope that we will move forward in a constructive debate about providing relief from the escalating costs of prescription drugs. However, I believe that minimizing cost through full access to generic drugs must be part of any effort to address the prescription drug pricing issue. I introduced the Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act of 2001 to lay the ground work early in these discussions and take some constructive steps in the right direction so that the American public can get the full benefit of safe, affordable generic prescription drugs and taxpayers are treated right at the same time. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation as one more step in my fight to combat rising prescription drug prices and reduce the cost of medication for consumers in this country. My legislation, called the Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act of 2001, aims to reduce the cost of prescription medication to American taxpayers and the U.S. government by encouraging the use of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, therapeutically equivalent generic prescription drugs within the federal health care programs, except if the non-generic form is either ordered by the prescribing physician or requested by the patient. The Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act of 2001 establishes a straightforward and cost-effective means of increasing consumers' access and choice to safe, affordable generic prescription drugs under federal health care programs which could result in savings of millions of dollars. The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which spends approximately $18.4 billion providing health insurance coverage to its' estimated nine million enrollees, including employees, retirees and their families, spends nearly twenty percent, $3.6 billion, of their insurance program costs on pharmaceutical benefits alone. This year brought little relief when the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that FEHBP premium increases for the year 2001 were on average 10.5 percent, mostly attributable to the cost increase in prescription drug plans to fill prescriptions with FDA approved, therapeutically equivalent generic prescription drugs. In fact, the rising cost of prescription drugs accounts for about 40 percent of the total rise in premiums for this year alone. In 1997, about one-third of all prescriptions under the FEHBP were for generic drugs. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers the FEHBP, estimated that total costs for prescription drugs would drop by about fifteen percent if half of all prescriptions were for generic drugs. A 1998 study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that generic pharmaceutical substitution saves consumers nationwide approximately eight to ten billion dollars a year. Some FEHBP plans and other federal health care programs do to some extent encourage the use of generic prescription drugs but the practice is not mandatory or universally incorporated into all programs. The Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act simply directs all federal health care programs that provide prescription drug plans to fill prescriptions with FDA approved, therapeutically equivalent generic prescription drugs, except if the non-generic form is either ordered by the prescribing physician or requested by the patient. I believe we can take greater steps to increase the utilization of high-quality, FDA approved generic drugs, which cost between twenty- five and sixty percent less than brand-name drugs, resulting in an estimated average savings of fifteen to thirty dollars on each prescription filled. In fact, independent studies have even estimated that generics provide an average savings of $45.50 for each prescription drug sold. Generic pharmaceutical drugs are widely accepted by both consumers and the medical profession, as the market share held by generic drugs compared to brand-name prescription drugs has more than doubled during the last decade, from approximately nineteen to forty-three percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yet, despite accounting for just over forty percent of the prescriptions drugs dispensed, generic drugs represent only 8 percent of the total dollar volume spent on drugs in this country. Studies have shown that consumers can save an additional $1.32 billion per year for every one percent increase in the use of generic drugs. That is why I strongly believe that generic pharmaceutical utilization can help both consumers and the government reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Since there exists no current coverage for outpatient prescription drugs under the Medicare program, a second component of my bill includes a sense-of-the-Senate that, to the extent feasible, a preference for the safe and cost-effective use of generic drugs be considered in conjunction with any legislation that adds a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. I strongly believe that the utilization of high-quality, safe generic pharmaceutical drugs in a Medicare prescription drug benefit would provide a built in cost control mechanism that would help ensure the economic feasibility and sustainability of any new benefit. And third, the bill I am introducing today works to prevent a tactic used by the brand drug industry to prevent generics from reaching the consumer by convincing state legislatures to pass unwarranted restrictions to the substitution of generic versions of brand name drugs. The campaign that some brand name drug companies lobby in some states is nothing more than an attempt by the brand name companies to protect their market share. The Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act increases the level playing field for generic drugs by requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where appropriate, to determine that a generic pharmaceutical is the therapeutic equivalent of its' brand-name counterpart, and affording national uniformity to that determination. The legislation would also prevent a State from establishing or continuing any requirement that keeps generic pharmaceutical drugs off the market once FDA has determined that a generic drug is ``therapeutically equivalent'' to a brand name drug. This provision will ensure that generic prescription drugs get to the market in a timely fashion and provide consumers with access and choice to low cost, high-quality alternatives. As the year continues, I hope that we will move forward in a constructive debate about providing relief from the escalating costs of prescription drugs. However, I believe that minimizing cost through full access to generic drugs must be part of any effort to address the prescription drug pricing issue. I introduced the Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act of 2001 to lay the ground work early in these discussions and take some constructive steps in the right direction so that the American public can get the full benefit of safe, affordable generic prescription drugs and taxpayers are treated right at the same time. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in introducing the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act. Last year, Senator Collins and I introduced similar legislation, S. 2419, that received broad, bipartisan support in Congress and among the veterans and higher education communities. Our goal with this year's legislation remains the same: to modernize the Montgomery GI Bill and help veterans achieve their goals of higher 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. This bill has allowed eight million veterans to finish high school and 2.3 million service members to attend college. Unfortunately, the current 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. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act will modernize the GI Bill and ensure its viability as education costs continue to increase. 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. This is evidence that the current GI Bill simply does not meet their needs. The main reason why military personnel no longer use the GI Bill is because GI Bill benefits have not kept pace with increased costs of education. 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. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act 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. In addition, 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. In fact, a study conducted on beneficiaries of the original GI Bill shows that the cost to benefit ratio of the GI Bill was an astounding 12.5 to 1. That means that our nation gained more than $12.50 in benefits for every dollar invested in college or graduate education for veterans. Congress and the President took an important step last year toward improving the Montgomery GI Bill by passing into law the Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000. This law increases the monthly education benefit to $650 and increases educational benefits of veterans survivors and dependents. These changes are long overdue, and the next step in restoring the effectiveness of the Montgomery GI Bill is through the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act and the creation of a true benchmark for veterans educational benefits. The very modest cost of improving the GI Bill will help our military and our society. I look forward to working with incoming Veterans Administration Secretary Anthony Principi, Senator Collins and my colleagues in the Senate, and interested members of the House of Representatives on passage of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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. Even more alarming is the fact 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. 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 prices equal to those of the pharmaceutical companies' most favored customers. Estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by over 40%, this bill will help those seniors 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 person's 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 our 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 legislation that will benefit millions of senior citizens and disabled individuals across our nation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in introducing the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act. Last year, Senator Collins and I introduced similar legislation, S. 2419, that received broad, bipartisan support in Congress and among the veterans and higher education communities. Our goal with this year's legislation remains the same: to modernize the Montgomery GI Bill and help veterans achieve their goals of higher 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. This bill has allowed eight million veterans to finish high school and 2.3 million service members to attend college. Unfortunately, the current 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. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act will modernize the GI Bill and ensure its viability as education costs continue to increase. 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. This is evidence that the current GI Bill simply does not meet their needs. The main reason why military personnel no longer use the GI Bill is because GI Bill benefits have not kept pace with increased costs of education. 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. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act 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. In addition, 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. In fact, a study conducted on beneficiaries of the original GI Bill shows that the cost to benefit ratio of the GI Bill was an astounding 12.5 to 1. That means that our nation gained more than $12.50 in benefits for every dollar invested in college or graduate education for veterans. Congress and the President took an important step last year toward improving the Montgomery GI Bill by passing into law the Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000. This law increases the monthly education benefit to $650 and increases educational benefits of veterans survivors and dependents. These changes are long overdue, and the next step in restoring the effectiveness of the Montgomery GI Bill is through the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act and the creation of a true benchmark for veterans educational benefits. The very modest cost of improving the GI Bill will help our military and our society. I look forward to working with incoming Veterans Administration Secretary Anthony Principi, Senator Collins and my colleagues in the Senate, and interested members of the House of Representatives on passage of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will correct an unintended oversight in the federal administration of Native American housing programs, allowing Indian tribes to once again access Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) for housing development in some of this nation's most under-served communities. In the 104th Congress, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) was signed into law, separating Indian housing from public housing and providing block grants to tribes and their tribally designated housing authorities. Prior to passage of NAHASDA, Indian tribes receiving HOME block grant funds were able to use those funds to leverage the Low Income Housing Tax Credits distributed by states on a competitive basis. Unfortunately, unlike HOME funds, block grants to tribes under the new NAHASDA are defined as federal funds and cannot be used for accessing LIHTCs. The fact that tribes cannot use their new block grant funds to access a program (LIHTC) which they formerly could access is an unintended consequence of taking Indian Housing out of Public Housing at HUD and setting up the otherwise productive and much needed NAHASDA system. The legislation I am introducing today is limited in scope and redefines NAHASDA funds, restoring tribal eligibility for the LIHTC by putting NAHASDA funds on the same footing as HOME funds. With this technical correction, there would be no change to the LIHTC programs--tribes would compete for LIHTCs with all other entities at the state level, just as they did prior to NAHASDA. This technical corrections legislation is a minor but much needed fix to a valuable program that will restore equity to housing development across the country. The South Dakota Housing Development Authority has enthusiastically endorsed this legislation out of concern for equitable treatment of every resident of our state and to reinforce the proven success of the LIHTC program for housing development in rural and lower income communities. I have joined many of my colleagues in past efforts to preserve and increase the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program which benefits every state, and I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of maintaining fairness in access to this program emphasized through this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support passage of this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

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. Even more alarming is the fact 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. 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 prices equal to those of the pharmaceutical companies' most favored customers. Estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by over 40%, this bill will help those seniors 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 person's 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 our 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 legislation that will benefit millions of senior citizens and disabled individuals across our nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Josh Heupel, a native of Aberdeen, South Dakota who led the undefeated Oklahoma Sooners to the National Championship January 3, 2001. Josh and the number one ranked Sooners beat the Florida State Seminoles 13-2 in the FedEx Orange Bowl in Miami. Although the game was a defensive struggle, Josh was able to complete 25 passes for 214 yards and also ran for another 24 yards. In the third quarter, Josh may have made the biggest play of the game when he made a crucial, 39-yard completion that kept the drive going to set up the second field goal of the game. That field goal gave the Sooners a 6-0 advantage. Josh showed his true character after finishing second in the Heisman Trophy race. He explained that while he was disappointed, the only trophy he truly wanted was the National Championship because that represented the accomplishments of his team, not an individual. On Wednesday night he was able to accomplish his dream. That selfless attitude is charactistic of Josh, not only on the gridiron, but in life as well. He is well known for his devotion to his family, particularly as a role model for his younger sister, Andrea. He gives his time freely to charities and to work in his church. In fact, the televised Orange Bowl game itself was transformed into a community-wide charity fundraising event in Josh's hometown of Aberdeen by his friends and family. Ken and Cindy Heupel are Josh's parents and they can be very proud of their son's accomplishments, both as a football player and as a caring member of society. Ken is the head football coach at Northern State and Cindy is the principal at Aberdeen Central High School. From all South Dakotans, I want to wish Josh a heart felt congratulations. Although you have already proven that you are a true champion with the volunteer work and the community service, I am sure it is nice to take home the championship hardware.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss S. 2589, the Meeting America's Investment Needs in Small Towns Act, or the MAIN Street Act as I call it. Not only is Main Street the acronym formed by this title, but it goes to the heart of why this legislation is necessary. As we move into the new economy, money is flowing from our small towns and communities to the larger financial markets. While each individual investment decision may make sense, the cumulative effect is a wealth drain from rural America. Money invested in Wall Street is not invested on Main Street. Wall Street wizards can work wonders with a portfolio, but they don't fund a new hardware store down the street. They don't go the extra mile to help a struggling farmer whose family they have served for years. And they don't sponsor the local softball team. By increasing the federally insured deposit level, we can help community banks and thrifts compete for scarce deposits. My legislation will account for the erosion to FDIC-insured levels from 1980. It will index these levels into the future, protecting against further erosions. Under current calculations, the immediate impact would be to almost double the insured funds, from $100,000 to approximately $197,000. The long range impact of this legislation would be to make locally based financial institutions more competitive for deposits, help stem the dwindling deposit base many areas face, and lead to new investments in our communities. Congress last addressed the issue of a deposit insurance increase in 1980. At that time, we increased the insured level from $40,000 to $100,000. Congress has not adjusted that level since 1980. In real terms, inflation has eroded almost half of that protection. Every bank or thrift customer knows that the FDIC insures deposits up to $100,000. For many people, that notice symbolizes that the financial might of the United States government stands behind their banking institution. We learned the hard lessons of the 1930s, and created the FDIC to protect and strengthen our financial system. In rural communities across America, local banks serve as the hub of the town. Every business in town relies on the bank for funding. The banker knows the town, and the town knows the banker. In many ways, each knows it disappears without the other. Individuals in these towns like to know who is handling their money. They like the idea that their funds are secure in their home town. And, they like the fact that their money can be leveraged into other investments that will improve their communities. The more deposits a bank has, the more loans it can make. These loans are made locally, and serve as an investment in local communities. The MAIN Street Act will help preserve these small towns and communities. It will bring greater liquidity to community banks and promote growth and development. I look forward to working with the FDIC and other banking leaders as we seek to update our banking insurance protections to allow small banks to compete with other investment opportunities available. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Bill Seidman which further outlines some of the issues surrounding federal deposit insurance.