Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to congratulate KELO-LAND TV of Sioux Falls, South Dakota for receiving the prestigious national Emmy award for it's Tradition of Caring'' public service announcement. The Emmy awards nobly serve as a gateway to focusing the public's attention on cultural, educational, and technological advances in the television industry. Specifically, the purpose of the award for the Public Service Announcement--Campaign category is to recognize special achievements of the television media establishment based on their unmatched ability to achieve excellence and originality. Within this category, the outstanding achievements KELO-TV made in it's ``Tradition of Caring'' public service announcement led them to be chosen as first among four national finalists at the presentation of the Emmy awards in New York City. The ``Tradition of Caring'' public service announcement culminates three outstanding years of active community involvement by all of KELO- LAND TV's employees on behalf of over twenty charitable organizations. The purpose of their public service campaign was to facilitate employee and community involvement in local causes. To effectively implement their campaign, employees were divided into teams based on similar interests with each team focusing on a particular organization within the community. Their personal approach to public service has not only won them an Emmy, but it has significantly helped organizations throughout South Dakota gain positive exposure and financial assistance. KELO-LAND TV richly deserves this distinguished award. It is an honor for me to share with my colleagues KELO-TV's exemplary leadership and strong commitment to both the development and enhancement of South Dakota's local communities through public service. I strongly commend their advancements in the television industry, and I am very pleased that their substantial efforts have found such extraordinary success.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for initiatives to create a federal-state-local partnership relative to public school construction and renovation throughout America. At a time when unprecedented budget surpluses are being projected by budget leaders at both the White House and in Congress, it seems clear to me that some modest portion of these funds ought to be used to assist our school districts. In South Dakota, it has become increasingly difficult to pass school bond issues, given the fact that real estate taxes are already too high and our state's agricultural economy has been struggling. The result is an enormous backlog of school construction needs, and the costs of repair and replacement only increase with each passing year. To propose a new school construction partnership is not to suggest some sort of ``federalization'' of K-12 public education. The decisions as to whether to replace or repair a school would remain with the local school districts where they belong, and by far the largest share of the expense would continue to be met by local taxpayers. Even so, a federal effort to reduce interest costs or otherwise participate in reducing the total cost of school construction could often times make the difference between a successful project or none at all. If the federal government were to simply block grant these funds, the dollars would have to be disbursed in such a broad manner that no school district would receive a sufficient amount of help to seriously make a real difference. While I appreciate that school construction assistance must be targeted to help needy school districts first, I do want to convey my strong opinion that the eligibility requirements for a federal-local partnership should not be so restrictive as to eliminate the possibility of many of our school districts from participating. South Dakota has a great many school districts which are not completely impoverished, but yet find it almost impossible to pass a bond issue and otherwise adequately fund their education programs. This program should apply to more than just the extreme poverty situations of inner urban areas and remote rural areas. It should apply as well to the many small and medium size communities all across our country that seriously struggle with school construction and renovation needs. I applaud and support these efforts to invest a small portion of our Nation's wealth in improved educational opportunities and facilities for all--this investment now, will result in improved academic performance, better citizenship and a stronger economy for generations to come.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on September 28, 2000, the United States Senate unanimously approved legislation to provide private relief for Frances Schochenmaier of Bonesteel, South Dakota. Frances' case clearly warrants action by the United States Congress to correct an injustice inflicted upon her family over 50 years ago. I am pleased that the Senate has taken this important step by passing the Private Relief Bill for Frances Schochenmaier, which I was proud to have introduced and was cosponsored by my friend and colleague from South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle. I will continue to work diligently with Members of the House of Representatives to ensure the legislation is passed before the end of this Congressional session and signed by the President. Frances' husband, Hermann Schochenmaier, was one of the thousands of young men who valiantly answered his country's call to duty during World War II. While serving in Europe, Hermann was wounded--shot in the arm in what medical personnel referred to as a through-and-through'' wound. Upon returning home, the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded Hermann a 10 percent disability rating. For 50 years, Hermann received disability compensation for the injury he received during his service in the United States military. Then, in 1995, the Department of Veterans Affairs acknowledged that it was ``clearly and unmistakably erroneous'' in rating Hermann's injury too low. Instead of a 10 percent rating, Hermann's injuries during World War II were consistent with a 30 percent disability rating. Over these 50 years, Hermann received approximately $10,000, when he should have actually received closer to $70,000. Unfortunately, only one week prior to the Department of Veterans Affairs correcting this problem, Hermann Schochenmaier passed away. To further complicate matters, the Department of Veterans Affairs refused to give Hermann's family the disability benefits he rightfully earned. For the past five years, I have worked with Frances to exhaust every avenue within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The answer was always the same: the law does not allow for veterans' widows to receive these lost benefits. So, I decided that it must take an act of Congress-- literally--to ensure that a veteran's widow from Bonesteel received the benefits her husband earned, but was denied from receiving in his lifetime. Thanks to the perseverance from members of my office, the continued faith of Frances and her family, and some bipartisanship among members of Congress, we were able to pass this important legislation in the Senate and put it on a track to be signed into law by the President before the end of this year. My wife, Barbara, and I are parents of a son who serves our country in the Army, and we know the sacrifices families make when their loved- ones travel overseas in the military. I am sorry that fate denied Hermann the opportunity to see justice done with the correction of his disability rating. I am thankful that fate and old-fashioned elbow- grease over these past five years has given our country the opportunity to make things right with Frances and the Schochenmaier family.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. I must say, I commend my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for his suggestion that some of us come to the floor today to talk a little bit about the process. Some people would say it is a procedural issue. It is far more profound than simply a procedural issue in the context of the way we have handled legislation on the Senate floor this year. The process that has been applied not only does, I believe, great damage to this institution, but, in the end, it has great consequence to the substance of our legislative priorities and certainly of the budget for our Nation. Two out of the 13 appropriations bills that are required to run the Federal Government have been passed. Eleven remain incomplete. October 1 is the beginning of the Federal fiscal year, and yet we have made little progress on the Federal budget. We have a CR, continuing resolution, that will take us to October 6. But, clearly, we are in a state of chaos right now relative to the completion of our work in the Senate. This year has been the shortest legislative session in the Senate since the ``do-nothing'' Congress that President Truman campaigned against. As my colleague from North Dakota alluded to, during the entire course of this year, we have been in session and have had votes in all of 3 weeks out of the year. How many of our constituents can imagine employment or service of any kind that would involve 3 full weeks out of the year? Of those 115 days we have been in session, roughly 30 percent of them have involved no votes whatever. No progress has been made relative to the completion of the people's agenda. Now we find, I think most profoundly objectionable of all, an appropriations process where appropriations bills which deal with the Federal budget but, more importantly, deal with where our priorities are as a people--whether we are going to invest more money in education, in health care, in Medicare, in the environment, in our national defense, towards debt reduction--these are all the issues that need to be resolved in the context of the appropriations debate. Yet we find now that these bills move in an unprecedented fashion from an appropriations committee directly to conference, with no consideration on the Senate floor whatever. It has never been done this way, this kind of legislative bypass of the legislative process, in the Senate. Fully half of the Senators in this body, 25 States, have no representation on the Appropriations Committee. Certainly that is the case for my home State of South Dakota. Those States have no input, no opportunity to speak for their constituents about the nature of these appropriations bills and the kind of priority they apply to our Nation's needs. These bills then go to conference. What is worse, all too often then the conference committees in turn have not met, but only the majority party members agree then to send the bill back to the floor in a conference report, which is unamendable. So we have not even the distilling of thought through the conference committee process. This is a terrible process, one that brings a significantly demeaning quality to the thoughtfulness that ought to be going into these fundamental questions. Eight years after President Clinton was elected to office, having inherited $300 billion a year in red ink, we find ourselves now running budget surpluses. In fact, the White House and the congressional budget experts project budget surpluses in excess of $4 trillion over the coming 10 years. We ought to be cautious about those projections. They are only projections. Most of the money would materialize only in the outer years. Even so, that is a remarkable turnaround. It creates for us a once-in-a-lifetime, a once-in-multiple-generations opportunity to focus on what kind of society America will be for years to come. If we take the surplus and then set aside the trust fund dollars-- Social Security and the other trust funds as well--it is projected that we will have a budget surplus of around $1.2 trillion over the coming 10 years. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the House and the Senate, over my objections and over the objections of Senator Daschle and most Members on our side, have passed tax cuts that would cost $1.7 trillion over 10 years, when we have only $1.2 trillion to spend before we even get to issues about whether we are going to do anything to improve the quality of education, Medicare, health care, debt reduction, veterans programs, agriculture, the environment, and whatever other needs our Nation might have. Wisely, the President has vetoed the two most expensive tax bills. We can bring them up again in a bipartisan fashion and in a more thoughtful manner. We can address those issues as well as questions of paying down the debt, questions of education and health care, rebuilding our schools, technology that we need, and the strength of our national defense. We cannot bring these issues up and consider them in a thoughtful, deliberative fashion if these issues bypass the Senate floor. That is what the process now entails. This a perversion of our democracy. This is not what the founders of our Republic designed. It does grave injustice not only to this institution but to the needs of every citizen of this Nation. I applaud the work of Senator Byrd, who is an extraordinary scholar, who has a great understanding of the traditions of this body, and who understands our democracy as well as anyone who has served in this body. I appreciate his suggestion that we come to the floor and talk about how our democracy is being demeaned by this process, that, in fact, the kinds of thoughtful, deliberative priority-making decisions all of our people ought to be engaged in are being denied as these bills go directly from the Budget and Appropriations Committees, with no opportunity for amendment, no opportunity for discussion, into conference committees, which are then unamendable. We wind up with the chaos that we have today, with only 2 of the 13 appropriations bills having been passed, as we near October 1, the beginning of the Federal fiscal year, and we find ourselves in a state of legislative chaos as we end this month of September. The people of this country deserve better. We need to work in a bipartisan fashion to bring these bills up in an orderly way and to allow amendments and debate, as was designed for this institution. To see that lost is something in which we can take no pride. It is a shameful circumstance in which we find ourselves in this body, that this would ever have occurred in our democracy. It has never happened before to this scope. It is my hope we learn some painful lessons from the experiences we are having this year. The issues before us are too profound. They are too significant relative to whether we will at last use some resources to pay down the debt, keep the cost of money down, and sustain a strong economy, while at the same time reserving some financial resources to rebuild schools, to do what we need to do to live up to our commitments to veterans, to have a strong national security, to improve our environment, to strengthen Medicare, and to do something about prescription drugs. These are the issues we are being denied an opportunity to debate, to vote on, and to arrive at the kind of political compromises necessary for all of our needs and all of our priorities and all of our points of view to be truly represented in this country. Hopefully, these are lessons that are painfully learned, lessons that will never have to be repeated in future years. This is a sad day to look back at the lack of progress that has been made in this 2nd session of the 106th Congress. This Senate has been denied its ability to truly do its work. The people of America, not the Senators, are the great losers by the process that has been applied to the appropriations process and the legislative process in general this year. I will do all I can to work in a bipartisan fashion to never allow this kind of process to occur again. The people of our Nation deserve far better. If we are going to play the leading role in the world, both economically and in terms of security, we need an institution that works better than that. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend Nelson Lagendyk of Avon, South Dakota on being inducted into the South Dakota Aviation Hall of Fame Combat Wing for his contributions to both state and national aviation. Mr. Lagendyk enlisted in the Air Force in June 1941 where he became a squadron clerk and joined the all volunteer glider program. His outstanding aviation skills led to his promotion to staff sergeant and a transfer to Lubbock, Texas for glider combat training. Once in Texas, Nelson was again promoted, this time to the position of Flight Officer. Following his new promotion, he then traveled to Louisville, Kentucky for continued training in preparation of his flight to Europe. Leadership, courage and honor define Nelson's heroic actions on June 6, 1944 when he joined 4,000 glider and tow planes for a dangerous flight into Hitler's occupied France. Nelson Lagendyk courageously risked his life to secure the airfield behind enemy lines, so that German prisoners may be transported to England where they would later be held accountable for the grave atrocities committed against the Jewish people under Hitler's infamous reign. Nelson's honors for his exemplary service include the distinguished Air Medal and the prestigous Battle Field Commission to 2nd Lieutenant, as well as the Normandy Medal of the Jubilee of Liberty'', which was presented to him by the French government in appreciation for the World War II liberation. Upon his retirement with the rank of General, Nelson enlisted in the Air Force Reserves as a ready reservist. He presently serves as South Dakota's Commander of the World War II Glider Pilot Association. Mr. President, Nelson Lagendyk richly deserves this noble distinction. It is an honor for me to share his heroic accomplishments with my colleagues and to publicly commend him for serving South Dakota and our country valiantly.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to speak about the importance of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act before September 30. Since enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the number of forcible rapes of women have declined, and the number of sexual assaults nationwide have gone down as well. Despite the success of the Violence Against Women, Act, domestic abuse and violence against women continue to plague our communities. Consider the fact that a woman is raped every five minutes in this country, and that nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. In fact, more women are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile accidents and cancer deaths combined. In South Dakota alone, approximately 15,000 victims of domestic violence were provided assistance last year. Shelters, victims' service providers, and counseling centers in my state rely heavily on VAWA funds to provide assistance to these women and children. VAWA reauthorization assures that states and communities will continue to have access to critical funds for domestic violence services. We must not allow this opportunity to pass us by. As you know, legislation to reauthorize VAWA has received broad, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. I am pleased to join 68 of my Senate colleagues in cosponsoring VAWA legislation that unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. Similar legislation in the House has 233 bipartisan cosponsors and was also approved in June by the House Judiciary Committee. Since the Violence Against Women Act became law, South Dakota organizations have received over $6.7 million in federal funding for domestic abuse programs. In addition, the Violence Against Women Act doubled prison time for repeat sex offenders; established mandatory restitution to victims of violence against women; codified much of our existing laws on rape; and strengthened interstate enforcement of violent crimes against women. The law also created a national toll-free hotline to provide women with crisis intervention help, information about violence against women, and free referrals to local services. Last year, the hotline took its 300,000th call. The number for women to call for help is: 1- 800-799-SAFE. In addition to reauthorizing the provisions of the original Violence Against Women Act, the legislation that I am supporting would improve our overall efforts to reduce violence against women by strengthening law enforcement's role in reducing violence against women. The legislation also expands legal services and assistance to victims of violence, while also addressing the effects of domestic violence on children. Finally, programs are funded to strengthen education and training to combat violence against women. A woman from South Dakota recently wrote me about this issue, and I'd like to share her story with you because I believe it makes the most compelling case for reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The letter begins: My story is that I was abused as a child, raped as a teenager, and emotionally abused as a wife. I survived that, but I almost didn't emotionally survive the last two and a half years knowing that my grandchildren were being abused and having my hands tied to be patient while our laws worked. My son has been fighting for custody of his triplets. The letter continues: Their story is horrible. While in the custody of their mother and her live-in boyfriend, they were battered, bruised, emotionally and sexually assaulted. She writes that one of her grandchildren got her ear cut off, another had his head split open, and the third child's throat was slit. Thankfully, the woman writes that her son finally got custody of her grandchildren and removed them from the abusive environment. The letter concludes: This is my story, and at least it has a happy ending, but there are hundreds of women and children out there still living in danger. Please reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Don't let another woman go through what I went through, and please don't let another child go through what my grandchildren have gone through. You can make a difference. Simply stated, reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act will provide much needed resources to prevent domestic violence in our country. I appreciate that we have many worthwhile legislative priorities remaining to be decided, including a majority of appropriations bills that must be passed this year. However, I can think of no better accomplishment for Congress than to reauthorize VAWA and help keep wives, daughters, sisters, and friends from becoming victims of domestic violence.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Balanced Budget Refinement Act introduced today that works to correct the inequities of Medicare reforms included in the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. I would like to commend Senator Daschle for his tremendous efforts on this issue and for his leadership with the introduction of this bill. As well, I congratulate a number of my other colleagues who have contributed immensely to the crafting of this critically important piece of legislation, including Senators Moynihan, Rockefeller, Conrad, Graham, Kerrey, Robb, Baucus, Breaux and others. By way of background, as part of the effort to balance the federal budget, the BBA of 1997 provided for major reforms in the way Medicare pays for medical services. The BBA made some important changes in Medicare payment policy and contributed to our current period of budget surpluses through significant cost savings in Medicare. These changes were originally expected to cut Medicare spending by about $112 billion over five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). However, projections showed spending falling nearly twice that much, and as a result, unintended payment cuts to providers had deepened more significantly than expected. In the face of these profound cuts, health care providers began to struggle, and beneficiary access to care became threatened, due to forced reductions in services especially in rural parts of the country such as South Dakota. As a result, Congress addressed some of these unintended consequences of the BBA by enacting the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA) last year which provided $16 billion over 5 years in payments to various Medicare providers, including; Hospital Outpatient Departments; Skilled Nursing Facilities; Rural Health Providers; Home Health Agencies; Medicare HMOs; and Teaching Hospitals. The impact in South Dakota indicated that approximately 9% of Medicare funding reductions imposed by the BBA of 1997 were returned as a result of the BBRA passed last year, resulting in approximately $15.3 million being restored to South Dakota Medicare providers. While this was certainly a step in the right direction, the BBRA of 1999 did not do enough as concerns from hospital and nursing home administrators, home health facilities, rural health providers, ambulance services and Medicare beneficiaries continued to be heard across the country. Not surprising, I continue to hear from many South Dakota safety net providers about the devastating effects such reductions in Medicare reimbursements are having throughout the health care industry in my home state. Consumers are also feeling the pain, as many individuals are being turned away from hospitals and nursing homes who cannot afford to accept new patients because of the lower reimbursement rates included in BBA of 1997. The undesirable and unintended cuts are devastating and feared to have severe implications on the quality and access of health care throughout our nation, including South Dakota, unless Congress acts immediately to further correct these problems. In South Dakota, and other rural parts of the country, hospitals and other health care providers have an extremely high percentage of Medicare beneficiaries making these cuts in reimbursement even more devastating. If Congress does not act in a timely fashion many of these providers may be forced to close their doors. Nowhere can we see the impact of closures more evident than within the nursing home industry. Nursing homes are experiencing closures at record rates across the country. In South Dakota, just last month we endured our first nursing home closure in Parker, South Dakota. Not only was this devastating for residents and workers, but the domino economic impact that goes hand in hand with such a facility closure is enormous for small communities to absorb. As well, one does not have to look far in my home state of South Dakota to see the impact many other health care providers and facilities are experiencing. Furthermore, the consequences are being felt across the board, from larger health systems in South Dakota communities such as Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Aberdeen, to medium centers in Brookings, Watertown, Pierre and Yankton, to the smaller rural facilities in places like Martin, Edgemont, Gregory, Miller, Hot Springs and Redfield, just to name a few. The situation is arduous for many of these facilities, who often carry the immense task of being the sole health care provider in the entire county. By way of example, Gregory Healthcare Center is a 26 bed rural hospital serving approximately 9,000 people. Not surprising, Gregory is the only local provider to offer a range of services including surgery, obstetrics, and various therapies, and also operates the only home health agency in the area. The facility in Gregory was forced to cut back its' home health services as a result of the BBA Medicare reductions. Many individuals once benefiting from specialized medication oversight and condition management services through Gregory's home health agency were now at home performing these services on their own, resulting in some cases to unnecessary hospitalizations. The situation in Gregory is by far not an isolated situation and facilities nationwide are being forced to cut services just to survive. Whether it be Gregory, South Dakota, or one of far too many other facilities in this country with similar issues, these are direct examples of the intense real life situations that facilities, providers and beneficiaries are experiencing every day as a result of inadequate BBA adjustments, payment updates and beneficiary protections. Therefore, I stand in strong support of the BBRA legislation being introduced today which will address problems facing vital health care services. I look forward to working with my colleagues on passage of the BBRA of 2000 which develops a creative, cost-effective approach to address the unintended, long-term consequences of the BBA. The proposed budget surplus provides Congress the unique opportunity to address many of the deficiencies in our nation's health care system. We need to address the valid concerns of teaching hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health providers, rural and community hospitals, and other health care providers who require relief from the consequences of the BBA.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Balanced Budget Refinement Act introduced today that works to correct the inequities of Medicare reforms included in the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. I would like to commend Senator Daschle for his tremendous efforts on this issue and for his leadership with the introduction of this bill. As well, I congratulate a number of my other colleagues who have contributed immensely to the crafting of this critically important piece of legislation, including Senators Moynihan, Rockefeller, Conrad, Graham, Kerrey, Robb, Baucus, Breaux and others. By way of background, as part of the effort to balance the federal budget, the BBA of 1997 provided for major reforms in the way Medicare pays for medical services. The BBA made some important changes in Medicare payment policy and contributed to our current period of budget surpluses through significant cost savings in Medicare. These changes were originally expected to cut Medicare spending by about $112 billion over five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). However, projections showed spending falling nearly twice that much, and as a result, unintended payment cuts to providers had deepened more significantly than expected. In the face of these profound cuts, health care providers began to struggle, and beneficiary access to care became threatened, due to forced reductions in services especially in rural parts of the country such as South Dakota. As a result, Congress addressed some of these unintended consequences of the BBA by enacting the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA) last year which provided $16 billion over 5 years in payments to various Medicare providers, including; Hospital Outpatient Departments; Skilled Nursing Facilities; Rural Health Providers; Home Health Agencies; Medicare HMOs; and Teaching Hospitals. The impact in South Dakota indicated that approximately 9% of Medicare funding reductions imposed by the BBA of 1997 were returned as a result of the BBRA passed last year, resulting in approximately $15.3 million being restored to South Dakota Medicare providers. While this was certainly a step in the right direction, the BBRA of 1999 did not do enough as concerns from hospital and nursing home administrators, home health facilities, rural health providers, ambulance services and Medicare beneficiaries continued to be heard across the country. Not surprising, I continue to hear from many South Dakota safety net providers about the devastating effects such reductions in Medicare reimbursements are having throughout the health care industry in my home state. Consumers are also feeling the pain, as many individuals are being turned away from hospitals and nursing homes who cannot afford to accept new patients because of the lower reimbursement rates included in BBA of 1997. The undesirable and unintended cuts are devastating and feared to have severe implications on the quality and access of health care throughout our nation, including South Dakota, unless Congress acts immediately to further correct these problems. In South Dakota, and other rural parts of the country, hospitals and other health care providers have an extremely high percentage of Medicare beneficiaries making these cuts in reimbursement even more devastating. If Congress does not act in a timely fashion many of these providers may be forced to close their doors. Nowhere can we see the impact of closures more evident than within the nursing home industry. Nursing homes are experiencing closures at record rates across the country. In South Dakota, just last month we endured our first nursing home closure in Parker, South Dakota. Not only was this devastating for residents and workers, but the domino economic impact that goes hand in hand with such a facility closure is enormous for small communities to absorb. As well, one does not have to look far in my home state of South Dakota to see the impact many other health care providers and facilities are experiencing. Furthermore, the consequences are being felt across the board, from larger health systems in South Dakota communities such as Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Aberdeen, to medium centers in Brookings, Watertown, Pierre and Yankton, to the smaller rural facilities in places like Martin, Edgemont, Gregory, Miller, Hot Springs and Redfield, just to name a few. The situation is arduous for many of these facilities, who often carry the immense task of being the sole health care provider in the entire county. By way of example, Gregory Healthcare Center is a 26 bed rural hospital serving approximately 9,000 people. Not surprising, Gregory is the only local provider to offer a range of services including surgery, obstetrics, and various therapies, and also operates the only home health agency in the area. The facility in Gregory was forced to cut back its' home health services as a result of the BBA Medicare reductions. Many individuals once benefiting from specialized medication oversight and condition management services through Gregory's home health agency were now at home performing these services on their own, resulting in some cases to unnecessary hospitalizations. The situation in Gregory is by far not an isolated situation and facilities nationwide are being forced to cut services just to survive. Whether it be Gregory, South Dakota, or one of far too many other facilities in this country with similar issues, these are direct examples of the intense real life situations that facilities, providers and beneficiaries are experiencing every day as a result of inadequate BBA adjustments, payment updates and beneficiary protections. Therefore, I stand in strong support of the BBRA legislation being introduced today which will address problems facing vital health care services. I look forward to working with my colleagues on passage of the BBRA of 2000 which develops a creative, cost-effective approach to address the unintended, long-term consequences of the BBA. The proposed budget surplus provides Congress the unique opportunity to address many of the deficiencies in our nation's health care system. We need to address the valid concerns of teaching hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health providers, rural and community hospitals, and other health care providers who require relief from the consequences of the BBA.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Hutchinson, to introduce the ``Physician Pathology Services Fair Payment Act of 2000.'' This important legislation allows independent laboratories to continue to receive direct payments from Medicare for the technical component of pathology services provided to hospital inpatients and outpatients. This bill encompasses both the inpatient and outpatient technical components in a comprehensive manner than will allow Congress to address both of these pressing issues in a single legislative vehicle. As you know, many hospitals, particularly small and rural hospitals, make arrangements with independent laboratories to provide physician pathology services for their patients. They do so because these hospitals typically lack the patient volume or funds to sustain an in- house pathology department. Yet, if the hospitals are to continue to provide surgery services in the local community, Medicare requires them to provide, directly or under arrangements, certain physician pathology services. Without these arrangements, patients may have to travel far from home to have surgery performed. Recently, HCFA delayed implementation of new inpatient and outpatient technical component (TC) reimbursement rules until January 1, 2001. However, many providers esepectially those in rural or medically underserved areas, remain concerned that the new rules will impose burdensome costs and administrative requirements on hospitals and independent laboratories that have operated in good faith under the prior policy. For hospitals and independent laboratories that have operated in good faith under the prior policy. For hospitals and independent laboratories with existing arrangements, changing the way Medicarepays for the TC physician pathology services provided to hospitals is likely to strain already scarce resources by creating new costs that cannot be easily absorbed. For the first time, independent laboratories will have to generate two bills--one for the technical components to the hospital and onother to Medicare for the professional components. Since each laboratory may serve five, ten or more hospitals, these separate billings will be costly and complicated. The ``Physician Pathology Services Fair Payment Act of 2000'' is essential to the many communities in my home state of South Dakota, and across the country, who rely on the continued presence of pathology services to retain a high-quality health care delivery system that is both responsive and accessible to each and every individual requiring these services. Pathologists provide an extremely powerful and valuable resource to these communities and the ``Physician Pathology Services Fair Payment Act of 2000'' will ensure that these health care professionals continue to positively impact the lives of not only South Dakotans but the lieves of millions of Americans who utilize these services without perhaps even knowing the critical role that they play in our health care delivery system. Mr. President, I ank unanimous consent that the complete text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Hutchinson, to introduce the ``Physician Pathology Services Fair Payment Act of 2000.'' This important legislation allows independent laboratories to continue to receive direct payments from Medicare for the technical component of pathology services provided to hospital inpatients and outpatients. This bill encompasses both the inpatient and outpatient technical components in a comprehensive manner than will allow Congress to address both of these pressing issues in a single legislative vehicle. As you know, many hospitals, particularly small and rural hospitals, make arrangements with independent laboratories to provide physician pathology services for their patients. They do so because these hospitals typically lack the patient volume or funds to sustain an in- house pathology department. Yet, if the hospitals are to continue to provide surgery services in the local community, Medicare requires them to provide, directly or under arrangements, certain physician pathology services. Without these arrangements, patients may have to travel far from home to have surgery performed. Recently, HCFA delayed implementation of new inpatient and outpatient technical component (TC) reimbursement rules until January 1, 2001. However, many providers esepectially those in rural or medically underserved areas, remain concerned that the new rules will impose burdensome costs and administrative requirements on hospitals and independent laboratories that have operated in good faith under the prior policy. For hospitals and independent laboratories that have operated in good faith under the prior policy. For hospitals and independent laboratories with existing arrangements, changing the way Medicarepays for the TC physician pathology services provided to hospitals is likely to strain already scarce resources by creating new costs that cannot be easily absorbed. For the first time, independent laboratories will have to generate two bills--one for the technical components to the hospital and onother to Medicare for the professional components. Since each laboratory may serve five, ten or more hospitals, these separate billings will be costly and complicated. The ``Physician Pathology Services Fair Payment Act of 2000'' is essential to the many communities in my home state of South Dakota, and across the country, who rely on the continued presence of pathology services to retain a high-quality health care delivery system that is both responsive and accessible to each and every individual requiring these services. Pathologists provide an extremely powerful and valuable resource to these communities and the ``Physician Pathology Services Fair Payment Act of 2000'' will ensure that these health care professionals continue to positively impact the lives of not only South Dakotans but the lieves of millions of Americans who utilize these services without perhaps even knowing the critical role that they play in our health care delivery system. Mr. President, I ank unanimous consent that the complete text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues a letter from numerous agricultural producers and organizations opposing any and all amendments to the bill to grant permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China. This letter specifies the dangers the pending amendment relative to Chinese non- proliferation requirements would pose to agricultural producers. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today with great pride and satisfaction to address an occasion of great significance that occurred during the Senate's August recess. On August 9, President Clinton awarded the highly prestigious Medal of Freedom to former United States Senator George McGovern. This medal is the very highest award presented to civilians by the United States Government, and is an honor that is richly deserved. Throughout his long and remarkable career, George McGovern has distinguished himself as a scholar, a political leader, a humanitarian and a person of extraordinary integrity. A generation of American political leaders still define themselves as McGovern Democrats.'' At Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell, South Dakota, George McGovern effectively emphasized the great importance of public service and civic involvement. As President Kennedy's Director of Food for Peace he helped launch our nation's commitment to combat world hunger. On the floor of the United States Senate, McGovern was a powerful voice for rural America, for our nation's disadvantaged, as well as for an end to the Viet Nam conflict. Today, as ambassador to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome, Ambassador McGovern has continued his work on nutrition and has articulated a visionary plan for a world school lunch program. As my colleagues are very aware, Senator McGovern won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in l972 in what turned out to be an unsuccessful presidential campaign. Historians will long ponder what the course of American history might have been if that campaign had turned out differently. But we don't have to wait for the judgment of historians to know George McGovern's life has had an incredibly important and lasting impact on America and the world. George continues to persevere and his commitment to a better planet continues to shine. We in South Dakota understandably feel a profound pride in the life and career of George McGovern--a son of a South Dakota minister, a military hero, a national political leader, and a diplomat of the highest order. I extend my enthusiastic congratulations to Senator McGovern and wish he and his family the very best as he continues his critically important work in Rome.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing today on the critical issue of the entertainment industry's marketing of violent material to children. While I am not a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I appreciated Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Hollings giving me the opportunity to share my perspective as the parent of three children and some insights on the issue I have gained from a series of youth violence meetings in South Dakota. In response to the numerous school shootings around our country, I've held a series of roundtable discussions in South Dakota with parents, students, school officials, and local law enforcement. I heard repeatedly from parents and students themselves that no one believes that explicitly violent movies, video games, or music are the sole causes for violence among our nation's youth. However, South Dakota students acknowledged that the entertainment industry has a large influence on their daily lives, and South Dakota parents specifically asked for additional resources they can use to help keep violent material out of their children's hands. My wife, Barbara, and I recently accompanied our youngest child to her first day at college. Seeing our daughter settle into her new home in the freshman dormitory brought feelings of sadness at the inevitable passage of time. Barbara and I also were relieved, in a sense, by the fact that our daughter's first day of college also marked the successful completion of her childhood. I can sympathize with the parents of children just entering their teen years who are concerned that it will be increasingly difficult to keep objectionable material from their sons and daughters as they grow up. That is why I am troubled by the results of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Report on the Marketing of Violent Entertainment to Children. As you know, the President asked the FTC to investigate two simple questions: Do the movie, music recording, and computer game industries market to young people products that contain violent content in a way that undermines the ratings they themselves apply to their products? If so, is that target marketing intentional? According to the recently-released FTC report, the answer to both questions appears to be yes.'' The FTC report found that 80 percent of movies rated R'' for violence were targeted to children under 17. A movie industry document even acknowledged that [o]ur goal was to find the elusive teen target audience and make sure everyone between the ages of 12-18 was exposed to the film.'' Another document spoke of using youth groups such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and 4-H Clubs in the market testing of R-rated'' films. Teenagers apparently have also been the target of the music industry's efforts to sell CDs with explicit content labels. According to the FTC report, all music recordings used in the study were in some way targeted toward children under 17. This practice included the placing advertising in media specifically aimed at a youth audience. Finally, the FTC report noted that 70 percent of all video games with ``Mature'' ratings for violence were targeted toward youth. It is important to note that the FTC report also conducted studies on children's ability to access these products. The FTC found that most retailers make little effort to restrict children's access to products with violent content. Almost half of the movie theaters used in the study admitted children ages 13 to 16 to R-rated'' films even when not accompanied by an adult. The FTC study also showed that unaccompanied children were able to buy explicit recordings and Mature-rated'' video games 85 percent of the time. The FTC's findings are staggering, and I am eager to hear the entertainment industry's response to the report. Clearly, the entertainment industry and its retail partners must refocus their efforts and work with the FTC and concerned members of Congress like myself to keep violent material out of the hands of children. It is my hope that the entertainment industry will take this opportunity to help restore the faith of the American public in its voluntary ratings system. Parents in South Dakota and around the country must also have resources they can trust to help them prevent youth violence in their own communities. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and members of the industry on ways to keep violent material out of the hands of children without infringing on fundamental First Amendment rights.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from Delaware and New York. Mr. President, my purpose today is to share some thoughts about the critical importance of PNTR legislation. Because my good friend and colleague from Idaho, just prior to my opportunity this morning, discussed the role of my good colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, relative to the timing of legislation, I do feel compelled to make a remark or two in that regard. No one in this body has done more than Senator Daschle of South Dakota to move legislation forward in an expeditious and well-timed manner. Whether it is PNTR, where Senator Daschle has for months been trying to bring this bill to the floor, or the Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drugs, school construction, minimum wage, and down the entire list of legislative agenda items before this body, Senator Daschle has been tireless in his efforts to bring them to the floor, to have consideration in a full manner. For anyone to suggest that somehow our good colleague from South Dakota would be playing some role in slowing down progress on these or other matters, I think, is a point simply not correct. I comment as well that while the President of the United States is seeking additional fuel from Saudi Arabia, it strikes me, and strikes others who are not concerned about the partisan politics of this, that is what we would expect the President of the United States to be doing at this summit conference in New York--trying to address the various components of energy policy necessary to reduce costs and increase the availability of fuel for American consumers. If the President were not doing that, there is no doubt there would be criticism leveled at him for doing nothing to negotiate and use American leverage with our OPEC neighbors and the world. I think some of this discussion earlier this morning has to be seen and evaluated in light of the fact that we are in this last month or two before a Presidential election. The partisan swords clearly have been drawn this morning. I should never be shocked at that, I suppose, particularly in an election year at this time of the year. But it is my hope that through all of this partisan political rhetoric, the American public will see through that. I think it is transparent. We need to work together in a bipartisan fashion. One of the things I am pleased about this morning is the bipartisan nature of our support for permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, who, among his other talents, is perhaps the finest scholar in this body--for many years, many generations--has observed that this may be one of the half dozen most critically important votes that we as Senators will take since the end of World War II. Obviously, this issue is of enormous import in terms of economic policy, economic strategy for the United States. It is a win situation for us. It is one sided. They give up limitations against the export of Americans goods. We give up nothing. But even if economic issues were a wash, even if there were not these kinds of obvious economic benefits for the United States, the geopolitical consequences of integrating the People's Republic of China's 1.3 billion people into the world rule of law, into the international community of nations to help stabilize the ongoing process of democratization and the free flow of ideas and scholars and business leaders is, in itself, reason enough for support for permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. So I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 4444, legislation which would grant PNTR to the People's Republic of China. In the past, Congress has had to pass legislation each and every year to ensure mutually beneficial relations between our two nations. Now we have reached the point where permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China is appropriate and will help pave the way for the World Trade Organization, WTO, membership for the PRC, and will strike a blow for the rule of law throughout the world. I am joining the leadership of both parties to oppose all amendments to PNTR, due to the very late stage of the congressional session in which we are taking up this bill. Many Senators will offer important amendments to H.R. 4444 concerning worker's rights, religious freedom, and human rights in the PRC. I support efforts to improve China's human rights record, the right of workers to organize, and religious freedom in China. But, I believe that jeopardizing H.R. 4444 is exactly the wrong approach. As a nation, we have attempted to promote global human rights, democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. While each nation ultimately determines for itself whether to pursue democracy and other American-supported values, I support efforts to open China to trade with democratic cultures. I am also opposed, obviously, to religious persecution and will support efforts to discourage it in China. However, there are other pieces of legislation that can be used to achieve these goals. The PNTR bill must be adopted in an amendment-free fashion if we are to avoid its ultimate defeat. With few days remaining in Congress, a PNTR bill adopted by the Senate that differs from the clean bill passed in the House of Representatives would force us to convene a conference committee to iron out the bill's differences. The result--significant delay which would be compounded by the margin in which the House adopted H.R. 4444 in May. Sending PNTR back to the House for another vote very likely means its ultimate defeat for this year. At this late stage in Congress, that is not an acceptable strategy for any of us to endorse. It is true this vote is of significant importance to family farmers, ranchers, and independent businesses in South Dakota and the entire country. However, this vote means much, much more--I believe this vote signifies one of the most critical geo-political votes the U.S. Senate will take since World War II. China, with its 1.2 billion people and one of the fastest growing economies in the world, needs to be required to live by the discipline of international law. That is what World Trade Organization--[WTO] membership would mean. China would have to open up its agricultural and other markets to the world, and it would not be permitted to violate international rules on copyright or patents. As a result of PNTR, I believe the presence of western consumer products, the exchange of democratic principles, and the free flow of ideas via technology and internet communication will do more to undermine authoritarian aspects of China's government than any kind of isolation could possibly accomplish--particularly unilateral isolation on the part of the United States. I feel very strongly that we need to build more bridges of understanding and cooperation between western democracies and the PRC, rather than work for the contrary. In the meantime, the biggest winners of all in establishing the same normalized trading relationships with China that we have with almost every other nation on the planet will be American farmers and ranchers and small businesses. The bilateral deal struck between the United States and China on November 15, 1999 is a completely one-sided trade agreement. China will be required to allow more of our goods into their country, while the United States will not be required to change a thing. Frankly, a failure to enact PNTR will simply mean that every other country in the world would have open access to Chinese markets, but the United States would have virtually none. Since the United States has few barriers to trade, and current trade restrictions are almost exclusively on the part of China and other nations, WTO agreements in general are overwhelmingly to the benefit of the United States. I have been to China and witnessed first-hand the opportunities for greater market access there. Since 1998, I have facilitated a series of trade missions to improve relations with China. The relationships we have built in this course of time may open markets for the farmers and ranchers of South Dakota and the United States. In March of 1998, my office hosted senior trade and agriculture officials from the Chinese Embassy on a trade mission to South Dakota. The officials toured the John Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls, the South Dakota Wheat Growers Cooperative in Aberdeen, and the Harvest States Feed Mill in Sioux Falls. During their visit, the Chinese trade officials also witnessed the ingenuity of South Dakota businesses like Gateway of North Sioux City, Daktronics of Brookings, and Wildcat Manufacturing of Freeman. The officials were impressed with our diversified economy and the quality and pride in our products. In a follow-up mission, in December of 1998, I led a delegation of South Dakota farmers to the PRC. We met with trade officials and scholars at the Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing University, and Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. Finally, in May of 1999, a 29-member delegation of Chinese trade officials traveled to South Dakota at my request to further explore agricultural trade opportunities. These Chinese officials met with farm group leaders, toured farming and ranching operations, and visited the South Dakota Soybean Processors plant near Volga. My visit to China, and discussions with Chinese trade officials, indicate that family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota are ideally situated to help satisfy the needs of China's 1.2 billion residents, who exhibit a growing appetite for a more sophisticated diet. China's agricultural production capabilities just cannot satisfy their people's needs right now, especially considering the country represents a mere 7 percent of the world's arable land. South Dakota agricultural exports in 1998 reached $1.1 billion and supported nearly 17,000 jobs. While Congress needs to place a much greater emphasis on improving domestic policies--like reforming the 1996 farm bill--greater access to closed-off markets will provide a boost to our agricultural economy too. Two-thirds of the prosperity or decline in South Dakota agriculture still depends upon a fair marketplace price here at home. I believe Congress has failed to make common sense reforms to the farm bill which may allow farmers to take advantage of a fair market. Nonetheless, one-third of our agricultural economy requires trade with other nations. Under the agreement we struck with China, South Dakota farmers and ranchers will no longer have to compete with unfair tariffs, unscientific bans, and export subsidies on China's agricultural goods. Beef cattle receipts represent the largest share of South Dakota's agricultural economy. China currently imports very little beef, but a growing middle class and rising demand from urban areas are expected to result in significantly increased demand for beef imports. China has agreed to lower tariffs on beef meat products from 45 to 12 percent, which may mean better returns for independent cattle ranchers in South Dakota. In addition, tariffs on pork imports into China will decline from 20 to 12 percent, aiding South Dakota's pork products as well. Wheat farmers in South Dakota desire greater access to the Chinese marketplace. As a result of our agreement with China, they will eliminate their unscientific ban on Pacific Northwest wheat imports from the United States. They will also agree to a substantial increase in the amount of wheat they purchase under their tariff rate quota. In 1998 China imported a mere 2 million metric tons of wheat. Our agreement will allow China to purchase up to 9.6 million tons of wheat below tariff rate quotas. In fact, in February of this year, China bought nearly 800,000 bushels of hard red winter and spring wheat from South Dakota and several other wheat growing states. While a relatively small transaction, their commitment to more open trade with the U.S. is exhibited with this purchase. Furthermore, as a large soybean producer, South Dakota's soybean farmers and farmer-owned processors of soybeans will benefit from a tariff cut China agreed to make on United States soybean exports. South Dakota farmers also produce substantial bushels of feed grain and corn. China agreed to make market-oriented changes to their tariff rate quota system on corn, nearly doubling the amount of corn they import under their tariff quota rate. While South Dakota agriculture is poised to benefit from greater trade with China, other businesses in our state are set to become major exporters under a more market-oriented trading system granted by PNTR for China as well. In fact, electronics and electronic equipment today comprise 78 percent of total South Dakota exports to China. More than half of the South Dakota firms, 58 percent, that export to China are small and mid-sized enterprises--with fewer than 500 employees--and several are family owned. China will liberalize quotas on manufacturing equipment, information technology products, and electronic goods produced right in South Dakota. This means our computer manufacturers like Gateway and equipment firms like Wildcat Manufacturing will find greater access to that nation. From 1993 to 1998, South Dakota's exports to China nearly doubled-- increasing by over 91 percent. I believe that if the Senate adopts H.R. 4444, South Dakota farmers, ranchers, and businesses will see tremendous new trade opportunities. Now is the time for the Senate to take advantage of this historic opportunity before us. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of a clean PNTR bill so that it can be sent to the President and signed into law in a proper fashion. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Holly Vineyard of the Finance Committee, a fellow from the Department of Commerce, be granted privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on H.R. 4444.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to join my colleagues to discuss the issue of the how the Missouri River should be managed by the Corps of Engineers. I strongly urge the Senate to adopt the Daschle-Baucus-Johnson amendment to strike Section 103 from the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which prevents needed changes to the management of the Missouri River that have been called for by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. President Clinton has stated that he will veto the bill if this amendment is not included. The time has come to manage the river in line with current economic realities. This issue has come before the Senate because some Senators from states downstream on the Missouri River are attempting to politicize the management of the River. As has been done in the last four years, they are trying to politicize this issue by adding a rider to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from changing the 40 year old master manual that sets the management policy of the river. Mr. President, let me assure you and the rest of my colleagues that after 40 years, the management of the Missouri River is in serious need of an update to reflect the current realities of the River. The Corps current plan for managing water flow from the Missouri River Dams, known as the master manual provides relatively steady flows during the spring, summer and fall to support a $7 million downstream barge industry. The manual has not been substantially revised on 40 years. In that time, the projections of barge traffic used to justify the manual have never materialized. Instead, the steady flows required by the manual have contributed to the decline of fish and wildlife along the river. To counter this problem, the Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a revision of the master manual which governs how the river is managed. I was among those who first called for a revision of the master manual because I firmly believed then, as I do now, that over the years, we in the Upper Basin states have lived with an unfortunate lack of parity under the current management practices on the Missouri River. It is no secret that we continue to suffer from an upstream vs. downstream conflict of interest on Missouri River uses. Navigation has been emphasized on the Missouri River, to the detriment of river ecosystems and recreational uses. I recognize that navigation activities often support midwestern agriculture, however the navigation industry has been declining since it peaked in the late 1970's. It is no longer appropriate to grossly favor navigation above other uses of the river. Those of us from the upstream States have been working for more than 10 years to get the Corps of Engineers to finally make changes in the 40 year old master manual for the Missouri River. After more than 40 years, the time has come for the management of the Missouri River to reflect the current economic realities of an $90 million annual recreation impact upstream, versus a $7 million annual navigation impact downstream. The downstream barge industry carries only 3/10 percent of all agriculture goods transported in the upper Midwest. The Corps has been managing the Missouri River for navigation for far too long and it is time to finally bring the master manual into line with current economic realities. Passage of the Daschle-Baucus- Johnson amendment will do just that. As I stated earlier, the process to review and update the master manual began more than 10 years ago, in 1989, in response to concerns regarding the operation of the main stem dams, mainly during drought periods. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in September 1994 and was followed by a public comment period. In response to numerous comments, the Corps agreed to prepare a revised DEIS. After years of revisions and updates that have dragged this process out to ridiculous lengths, the Corps finally came forward with alternatives to the current master manual, including the ``split season'' alternative, which I strongly support, along with my colleagues from the Upper Basin States. The rider to prevent implementation of changes in the manual has been included for the last 4 years. In previous years, this rider was not as important because the Corps was not ready to revise the river management policies. However, this year, the Corps is consulting extensively with the Fish and Wildlife Service and is officially learning that it must implement a spring rise and split season to avoid driving endangered species to extinction. Since the Corps finally has a schedule to complete the process in the near future, rejecting this rider is more than important than ever. Those of us from the States in the Upper Basin are determined to work aggressively for the interests of our region. For decades our states have made many significant sacrifices which have benefitted people living further south along the Missouri River. Mr. President, now is the time to finally bring an outdated and unfair management plan for the Missouri River up to date with modern economic realities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I will vote to uphold the President's veto of the wildly irresponsible estate tax repeal bill sent to his desk, and I will also continue to support changes in the law that will provide additional relief for the two percent of American families that are subject to this law. Under current law, family farms and small business pay no Federal estate tax unless their property is worth more than $1.3 million. Others are eligible for an estate tax exemption of $675,000. I recently voted to raise the small business and family farm exemption to $4 million by 2001 and with a phased in exemption of $8 million by 2010. The general exemption would increase to $2 million by 2001 and $4 million by 2010. The cost to the Treasury for this additional exemption for America's wealthiest families comes to about $61 billion over ten years. The cost of the total-repeal bill being vetoed by the President, however, comes to $105 billion over the first ten years, and a whopping $750 billion when fully phased in during the next ten years. Very few South Dakota farms or small businesses have any Federal estate tax liability whatever under current law, but I do want to make sure that exemptions are ample. What I don't want to see, however, is an estate tax repeal bill that is so terribly expensive that it makes it almost impossible for Congress to pass tax relief for middle class taxpayers, to shore up Medicare, to pay down more of the accumulated national debt or improve education. Keep in mind that most of the budget surplus that is being talked about will not materialize for another five years or so, and prudence would suggest to us that it may never materialize at all. Thank heavens for some adult supervision from the White House at a time when Congress has been behaving like spoiled children under the Christmas tree. Supporters of this irresponsible legislation believe there is room in our budget to give multimillionaires an $8 million tax break, but the legislation sent to the President would have broken the bank and denied relief and assistance to the other 98 percent of American families. Once Congress concludes its partisan political finger-pointing games, it is my hope that estate tax and marriage penalty relief can be passed in a proper and careful manner that will allow for debt reduction, Medicare improvements, and a commitment to education.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor S. Res. 133, a resolution supporting religious tolerance toward Muslims. I wholeheartedly believe that anti-Muslim intolerance and discrimination should be condemned and must be fought at every opportunity. As Americans, we enjoy the right to speak and think freely. With that right comes a responsibility to ensure that free speech does not foster intolerance and lead to an atmosphere of hatred or fear. It is wrong when entire religions are made to be a scapegoat because of ignorance or spite, and I will continue to do all I can to promote thoughtful understanding and appreciation of the Muslim faith. I am proud of the accomplishments and contributions made by Muslims in South Dakota and across America. I am hopeful that the Senate and entire Congress will approve this resolution in order to highlight the important role Muslim Americans play in our society.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Dr. Samir Abu-Ghazaleh, who has been appointed by President Clinton to the National Cancer Advisory Board. Dr. Abu- Ghazaleh is currently a gynecologic oncologist at the Avera Cancer Institute in Sioux Falls, South Dakota where he has been successfully serving the important health needs of the citizens in my home state. Dr. Abu-Ghazaleh attended Nahara College and received a MB.B. from Ain Shams University Medical School, both in Cairo. He did his residency in OB-GYN in Yankton, South Dakota, at the University of South Dakota Affiliated Hospital, from 1972 to 1976. He also held a residency in gynecologic oncology at Duke University, from 1976 to 1978. After finishing his schooling in medicine, Dr. Abu-Ghazaleh returned to South Dakota where he served as the Director of the OB-GYN Student Teaching Program from 1981 to 1985, and an Associate Professor from 1980 to 1985, at the University of South Dakota School of Medicine. When not practicing medicine, Dr. Abu-Ghazaleh is writing about it. He is the author of numerous articles on gynecology and oncology. The community in which he practices is important to him and he has hosted several workshops and presentations as a free service to inform the public and increase cancer awareness, particularly concerning women's health issues. Dr. Abu-Ghazaleh is a member of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group, the Gynecologic Oncology Group, and the American College of Gynecologists. He has also been a member of the National Cancer Institute. Beginning in 1985, he has continued to serve as a Fellow of American College of Surgeons. Additionally, Dr. Abu-Ghazaleh has been a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Surgical Gynecologic Oncologists since 1980. It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise in recognition to an outstanding health care provider, an honored member of the National Cancer Advisory Board, and a true asset to the state of South Dakota. He is a man who has dedicated his life to helping others and providing education on the serious illness of cancer. Again, congratulations to Dr. Samir Abu-Ghazaleh. I trust the Advisory Board will find him a valuable asset and a skilled advisor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to join my colleagues to discuss the issue of how the Missouri River should be managed by the Corps of Engineers and to address the remarks made earlier this week by my friends and colleagues from Missouri, Senators Bond and Ashcroft. This issue has come before the Senate because some of my colleagues from states downstream on the Missouri River are attempting to politicize the management of the River. They are trying to politicize this issue by adding a rider to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill to prevent the Corps of Engineers from changing the 40 year old Master Manual that sets the management policy of the River. Let me assure you and the rest of my colleagues that after 40 years, the management of the Missouri River is in serious need of an update to reflect the current realities of the River. As the discussion--and sometimes, heated debate--continues with respect to the Missouri River and its various uses, the Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a revision of the Master Manual which governs how the River is managed. I was among those who first called for a revision of the Master Manual because I firmly believed then, as I do now, that over the years, we in the Upper Basin states have lived with an unfortunate lack of parity under the current management practices on the Missouri River. It is no secret that we continue to suffer from an upstream vs. downstream conflict of interest on Missouri River uses. For example, traditionally, navigation has been emphasized on the Missouri River, to the detriment of river ecosystems and recreational uses. I recognize that navigation activities often support midwestern agriculture, however the navigation industry has been declining since it peaked in the late 1970's. It is no longer appropriate to grossly favor navigation above other uses of the river. Those of us from the upstream states have been working for more than 10 years to get the Corps of Engineers to finally make changes in the 40 year old Master Manual for the Missouri River. After more than 40 years, the time has come for the management of the Missouri River to reflect the current economic realities of a $90 million annual recreation impact upstream, versus a $7 million annual navigation impact downstream. The Corps has been managing the Missouri River for navigation for far too long and it is time to finally bring the Master Manual into line with current economic realities. As I stated earlier, the process to review and update the Master Manual began more than 10 years ago, in 1989, in response to concerns regarding the operation of the main stem dams, mainly during drought periods. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in September 1994 and was followed by a public comment period. In response to numerous comments, the Corps agreed to prepare a Revised DEIS. After years of revisions and updates that have dragged this process out to ridiculous lengths, the Corps finally came forward with alternatives to the current Master Manual, including the ``split season'' alternative, which I strongly support, along with my colleagues from the Upper Basin states. Those of us from the States in the Upper Basin are determined to work aggressively for the interests of our region. For decades our states have made many significantly sacrifices which have benefited people living further south along the Missouri River. Now is the time to finally bring an outdated and unfair management plan for the Missouri River up to date with modern economic realities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to add my condolences to that of my colleagues on the passing of our friend and colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia. Senator Coverdell was a model of proper conduct and decorum becoming of a Senator. He conducted himself in the quiet, deliberative manner that reflected his commitment to a thorough performance of his duties. He was a true leader, willing to do his best for all Americans. Most recently, he and I worked together to keep our nation's promise to provide health care coverage to military retirees, when we introduced legislation together earlier this year. As my colleagues know, Senator Coverdell had extreme pride in this country. It was an honor to work with him on making good to those people who have served their nation and are now in the years of declining health. It was also an honor to work with Senator Coverdell every day, for he was truly interested in ensuring our democracy remained strong and pushed forward confidently into the Twenty-first Century. Mr. President, I wish to extend my condolences to the Coverdell family, including his many friends and his staff. The entire Senate family has lost a friend and the nation has lost a leader. However, we are all enriched by having known such an honorable man. His service and commitment will have a definite and lasting legacy.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I represent a western gold mining State. I have just returned recently from examining the Brohm site in the beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota where the Brohm Mining Company has gone bankrupt with approximately a $5 million bond. That site has now been declared a Superfund site. It is now going to cost the Federal taxpayers approximately $27 million because of the inadequacy of the bond at this site. It is going to cost the taxpayers of the State of South Dakota in perpetuity tens of millions of dollars to monitor the streams and the environment around that bankrupt site. Is the Senator telling us that without the amendment he is offering here, we will continue to see these inadequate bonds and these costs being shifted to the taxpayers to pick up the cost of mining companies--oftentimes foreign mining companies--that have spoiled our land and then walk on?

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator respond to a question?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to join Senators Dorgan and Jeffords in support of the prescription drug amendment being offered to the Agriculture Appropriations bill currently pending before this body. I commend my colleagues for their steadfast commitment to addressing this critically important issue. Like all of my colleagues, I deplore conditions that lead to Americans choosing between buying food for their family or medicine for their illnesses which is a choice that millions of consumers in this country are forced to make every day. This is a travesty and one that I am committed to put an end to. The discussion of prescription drug pricing, accessibility, affordability, and safety has been elevated to new heights in the last year as we in Congress work to develop a practical and cost-effective approach to providing relief to combat escalating prescription drug prices for consumers throughout the United States. Numerous studies have been conducted that highlight the price differentials existing between the United States, our neighbors to the North and South, and countries in the European Union. Several reports confirm that pharmaceutical prices are substantially higher in the United States than other countries. Consider how drug prices charged to Americans differ from the drug prices paid by people living in other areas of the world as reported from a study done by the PRIME Institute at the University of Minnesota. The study found that if Americans pay an average of $1.00 for a pharmaceutical product, that exact same product with the exact same dosage would have a much lower average cost in other industrialized nations. On average, that $1.00 product in the United States would cost .64 cents in Canada, .68 cents in Sweden, .65 cents in England, .71 cents in Germany, .57 cents in France, and .51 cents in Italy. This amounts to price-gouging of Americans. It's wrong, and it has to stop. So you ask, why don't Americans just buy it over the border and bring it back to the U.S.? Well, some individuals are being forced to take such drastic measures. South Dakota, though it does not share a border with another country, has an increasing number of individuals willing to make the drive to either Mexico or Canada, knowing full well that the savings are great enough to more than offset any expenses occurred in the process. Presently, anecdotal evidence suggests that thousands of Americans cross the border to see a doctor and get their prescriptions filled for 25-50% less in cost for many popular prescription drugs. Here are a couple stories that have been shared with me over the last year: A 72 year-old woman in Arlington, SD who spends $243 a month on prescription drugs wrote to me and said, ``The meds are so high in South Dakota. I try to get as much of them in Mexico as I can. I don't understand why there has to be such a difference in price.'' A 41-year-old man suffering from a disease that requires daily medication at a cost of more than $400 per month wrote to me and said, ``I want you to know that while I recognize that seniors are particularly hurt by unfair prescription pricing due to their fixed incomes, other Americans also feel the pinch. The same medication that I take is available in Mexico at less than half the price that it costs me in the U.S. Unfortunately, I can not afford to travel to Mexico periodically to obtain my prescription.'' Under current federal law, however, pharmaceutical companies are the only ones allowed to import drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration into this country. Yet, if an American pharmacist or distributor wants to purchase these FDA-approved drugs at the lower prices available in other countries and pass the savings along to their customers, they are prohibited by law from doing so. On July 10, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed two amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that would allow widespread importation of prescription drugs without any FDA oversight. The overwhelming bipartisan support for these amendments clearly shows that Congress no longer wants to deny American consumers access to FDA approved medications that are available in other countries at much lower prices. I support that position and, in fact, have sponsored legislation introduced by my colleagues Senators Dorgan and Jeffords regarding international pricing disparities. While I agree with the intent of the House action, I have concerns that the House provisions do not include the safety mechanisms necessary to ensure that only safe and effective FDA approved medications cross our borders. Perhaps the number one concern mentioned in regard to the reimportation of prescription drugs is the safety of the consumer. As with any product that passes through multiple distribution channels, it is important that a baseline be established to ensure proper handling and storage. This is particularly crucial in maintaining the therapeutic equivalence of prescription drugs. The amendment we are offering today, which would amend federal law to allow pharmacists, distributors and licensed wholesalers to legally import U.S. FDA approved prescription drugs, addresses this concern by implementing assurances that any prescription drug reimported under this proposal be manufactured, packaged, and labelled according to FDA standards. It includes the essential safety provisions that will allow American consumers to benefit from international price competition for prescription drugs in the safest manner possible. Many pro-consumer groups such as Families USA, Public Citizen and the National Community Pharmacists Association endorse this amendment saying it is a positive step towards leveling the playing field for prescription drug prices and would save U.S. consumers billions of dollars by allowing the safe reimportation of American-made, FDA- approved prescription drugs. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry presents many economic and proprietary rationales for price disparities. From price controls to R&D to currency exchange rates, arguments are made that the prices garnered by some pharmaceutical companies are justified in a world where price is a measure of willingness to pay and price elasticity, not compassion or empathy. Industry representatives have stated it would be profoundly fatal to allow for the reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs from other countries who purchase them at a much lower cost than our nation's senior population as this will create instability in the world's pharmaceutical markets. Personally, I can think of nothing more tragic than charging Americans prices for prescription medications that cost far more than the majority of Americans are able to pay without sacrificing one or more basic needs in their lives. In my home state of South Dakota, I am conducting prescription drug meetings where constituents are able to communicate their concerns regarding prescription drug prices and express their ability, or perhaps inability, to pay for therapeutic regiments prescribed by their physician. Many of them ask, ``Why are citizens of other countries able to purchase their prescriptions at such lower prices?'' After all the arguments I have heard from the industry on why this is the case, I have yet to hear an acceptable response that I could give. Perhaps the most disturbing argument that I have heard in the past year came from an industry representative during an Alliance for Health Reform briefing last year. Our colleague, Senator Rockefeller, read a question from the crowd that asked why this individual's brother-in-law got the same medication from the same U.S. manufacturer for a considerable amount less. What I heard in response was shocking. The following quote is taken verbatim from the transcript of that briefing: Price discrimination is an economic concept that merely means different people in different markets are charged different things. In this particular case, price discrimination exists between the Canadian market and American market, for lots of reasons: differences in medical practice, how much of the product is sold, difference in exchange rates, different kinds of patent protections, the length and cost in time of distributing drugs and the marketing of drugs, and differences in living standards. [You] could have used Mexico as your example and would have found that it is less than a third of the price potentially and that's in large part because the standard of living is substantially lower and they can afford so much less. Beyond that, and the other income differences, there is the difference in willingness to pay. The idea that Americans are charged what they are because they are willing to pay for it, is perhaps the most insensitive of all arguments. Can you imagine measuring the value of someone's life by whether or not they are willing to fill their prescription to control their cholesterol level or pay their rent? As well, the standard of living that exists for most elderly in the United States is precisely the reason why we are having this hearing today. The simple fact is many seniors are not able to meet all of their basic needs and adhere to their prescription regiment. The number of South Dakotans who, due to their standard of living, can not afford their prescription drugs suggests that the pricing of pharmaceutical goes far beyond reasons based on standard of living and willingness to pay otherwise South Dakotans would have no problem affording their prescription drugs. Mr. President, I am reminded of a popular fast food chain motto some years back that proclaimed, ``Make a run for the border.'' Who would have ever thought that we would be applying this same motto to the citizens of our country with regard to their prescription drug needs. The amendment before us is an appropriate response to the discriminatory pricing practices engaged in by much of the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry, year after year, sits at the top of the Fortune Magazine list of most profitable industries in the country. The latest report covering 1999 showed the industry maintained top rankings from previous years: No. 1 in return on revenues, No. 1 in return on assets, No. 1 in return on equity. And the prices they charge to the uninsured in America remain the highest in the world. For years, Americans have paid the price in more ways than just at the pharmacy counter for the cost of their prescription drugs. Improper prescription drug usage results in thousands of deaths a year though the exact number of seniors included in this number may never be known. How many seniors skip a day's pill or cut them in half in order to stretch their prescription just one more day? I would argue that even one is too many. We are all working to address the concerns of not only our constituents in our respective home states but for citizens across this nation that rely on prescription drugs for their health care needs. I believe that every Senator here today is deeply concerned about the rising out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs and hopefully we can address many of these concerns here today with passage of this amendment. I am pleased to join Senators Dorgan and Jeffords in cosponsoring this crucial amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support its immediate passage.

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