Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

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

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to address the Senate today in support of a conference report (H.R. 2559) that improves and expands the crop insurance and risk management tools available to farmers in the United States. I am equally pleased to support economic and disaster assistance attached to H.R. 2259 not because I believe the assistance will always be targeted to those that need it most, but rather because Congress cannot afford to ignore the opportunity to act now in order to provide timely relief to our nation's family farmers and ranchers. Collapsed crop and livestock prices, weak export demand, and agribusiness concentration continue to threaten the viability of our independent family farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance provides many agricultural producers with a risk management tool, and with the reforms made in the legislation before us today, crop insurance will prove even more effective. Nonetheless, I must caution that no matter how well crop insurance is improved, it is not a substitute for a sound farm policy or a safety net. Instead, crop insurance is an important part of that farm safety net. Moreover, the economic and disaster farm aid attached to this legislation will help in the near-term, but for the third year in a row this Congress has failed to address the underlying shortcomings of the current farm bill. Crop insurance is critical to the farmers of South Dakota. Nearly twenty South Dakota grown crops are currently eligible for crop insurance, and among our major commodities, participation in the crop insurance program is high. Ninety-five percent of our corn acreage is enrolled in crop insurance while ninety two percent of our soybean acres are in this program. Wheat producers in South Dakota place seventy-six percent of their acreage in crop insurance. After the reforms made to the program in 1994--when I chaired the House Agriculture Subcommittee dealing with this issue--over 10 million acres of farmland in my state were enrolled in crop insurance. I was pleased to co-sponsor a bipartisan reform bill that is a modification of S. 1580, the Kerrey-Roberts Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act. The conference report before the Senate today closely mirrors the Kerrey/Roberts legislation and addresses some of the most serious concerns of the current crop insurance program; affordability, dependability, and flexibility. Nearly every agricultural producer wants the opportunity to purchase higher levels of crop insurance coverage, but most have found that buy- up coverage becomes cost prohibitive. This bill makes coverage more affordability by providing higher subsidies for higher levels of coverage. South Dakota farmers support this provision of our bill because affordability seems to be the most pressing issue facing crop insurance today. In recent years, the issue of coverage dependability has come into serious question. Farmers in South Dakota and elsewhere have suffered under multiple years of weather related disasters. The bill before us today ensures greater coverage dependability by providing relief for producers suffering from insurance coverage decreases and premium increases due to multi-year crop losses resulting from natural disasters. The conference report authorizes USDA to conduct a series of pilot programs to provide risk management protection to livestock producers, I am hopeful livestock producers can stand to benefit from this action because to date they have been specifically excluded from this protection. Yet, I am disappointed the crop insurance conference committee members dropped a provision that sought to maintain conservation compliance as a part of crop insurance coverage. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I helped secure $6 billion last year (over a four year period) in order to improve the overall crop insurance program. This year, funds were added to this level to bring a total of $8.2 billion over five years to crop insurance improvements. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am pleased the legislation I cosponsored and supported closely mirrors the conference report before us today; therefore, I am pleased to vote for H.R. 2259. Nonetheless, I want to discuss some items in the economic and disaster assistance package included in the conference report. I am concerned that the conference committee ignored the inequity inherent with the current farm bill, and instead, chose to make economic aid payments to farmers based on AMTA payments. Even though South Dakota producers stand to receive--in a timely fashion--about $158 million in additional AMTA payments within the economic aid package, these payments are unfair to many of the family farmers in my state for a number of reasons. First, AMTA payments are made regardless of whether crop prices are high or low. I would prefer an approach (in overall farm policy and in the context of disaster aid) that provides targeted, counter-cyclical benefits to family-sized farmers because it would be more market- oriented and provide a more reliable safety net. Second, since AMTA payments are based on outdated crop yields and base acres from 1985, they are unfair to many South Dakota farmers. In the mid-1980s, farmers in my state planted more grain sorghum and oats in combination with the staple crops like wheat, corn, and soybeans. But, all of these crops make up their ``base acres'' upon which an AMTA payment is made. As such, farmers in South Dakota may receive AMTA payments on low-value crops like oats and grain sorghum that they don't even plant today. Moreover, crop yields in the mid-1980s were much lower than crop yields today, yet, AMTA payments are based on these outdated crop yields. For example, the 1985 corn yield assigned to AMTA payments is set at 64 bushels per acre. Yet today, most farmers raise around 100 bushels of corn or better. Once again, the AMTA payments fail to recognize modern day farming conditions. Finally, there still exist situations where landlords and not farm operators receive the AMTA payments. Last week I sent a letter to Conference Committee Chairmen Lugar and Combest insisting that Congress must not alter statutory payment limitations so large farming entities can't swallow up the majority of government assistance. Last year, an amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill increased payment limits on loan deficiency payments and marketing loans from $75,000 to $150,000 for 1999. As a result of this specific change last year, only the largest of the large farms stood to benefit. My letter urged the conference committee members to not extend this special treatment of the payment limits beyond 1999. I am very pleased the conference committee agreed to reinstate the more responsible, lower, payment limits for this year. Family farmers are the backbone of rural America. If we have a limited amount of taxpayer funds in which to provide a safety net for farmers, it is simply common sense that we target the benefits to those who need the assistance. I also want to mention that there are several items within the economic and disaster aid package that I support, and as such, I will vote in favor of this legislation. First, sheep producers in South Dakota have suffered under near all- time low wool prices. To add insult to injury, many of these same producers must try to compete in lamb meat production with unfair and surging imports from other countries. I am especially pleased the conference committee agreed to provide $11 million in fiscal year 2001 to provide direct payments to sheep producers based on poor wool prices. Second, as a strong advocate of farmer-owned value-added cooperatives, I am extremely satisfied to support the inclusion of $15 million worth of competitive grants in fiscal year 2001 to assist producers in establishing these types of business ventures. Because flooding remains an obstacle to crop production in many parts of South Dakota, I am pleased to support the $24 million in the conference report for the Flooded Lands Compensation Program. I am also pleased this legislation offers honey producers in South Dakota and across the nation a recourse loan program to help provide a safety net and price support in order to market their product. Finally, I am pleased the conference committee included provisions from my legislation--S. 2056, The Emergency Commodity Distribution Act of 2000--which restores funding to USDA in order to procure commodities for the School Lunch Program over a nine year period. Last year, Congress enacted the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act. A provision of this legislation amended the School Lunch Act to require USDA to count the value of ``bonus'' commodities when it determines the total amount of commodity assistance provided to schools. This change will result in a $500 million budget cut for the School Lunch Program over a nine-year period without congressional action this year. While not large in overall budget terms, this cut will have an immediate impact that is especially severe in school districts more dependent on the program. My legislation would ensure that schools receive the full value of entitlement commodity assistance, and allow the School Lunch Program to continue to meet its dual purpose of supporting American agriculture while providing nutritious food to children across the country. While the provision included in today's legislation provides $34 million in fiscal year 2000 and $76 million in fiscal year 2001, it does not restore the entire $500 million over the nine-year period. However, I am greatly pleased the conferees agreed to include part of my legislation in the conference report as this represents a step in the right direction. I also encouraged the conference committee to consider inclusion of my bills to forbid packer ownership of livestock and to label meat for its country-of-origin. My legislation enjoys broad support all across the nation because it will restore confidence and freedom in livestock markets. I am disappointed the committee failed to include either of these items as it will once again become clear that Congress largely ignored the independent livestock producer trying to compete in an unfair marketplace.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Bingaman, Daschle, and Inouye, 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. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, 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 added at the end of my remarks.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Bingaman, Daschle, and Inouye, 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. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, 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 added at the end of my remarks.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, for the eighth year in a row, the Uniform Crime Report indicates that violent crime has decreased across our country. In 1999, the number of murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, robberies, and property crimes decreased eight percent in the Midwest and seven percent overall. While crime experts will argue endlessly on the reasons behind this remarkable trend, I believe that local, state, and federal law enforcement are primarily responsible for making our streets safer than a decade before. While I am pleased with the results of this new report, it is important to remember that behind every crime statistic, there is a child, a spouse, a relative, or a friend that has been victimized. Even one crime is too many because that crime victim has been violated in a way that forever changes their life. In our country's haste to focus on what should happen to the criminal, the victim is too often overlooked. That doesn't have to be the case, and I believe that more should be done to assist crime victims in South Dakota and around the country. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware that victimization in and of itself is terrible to cope with, let alone the anguish of a legal proceeding and restitution recovery. The voice of the victim should be heard at every step of the criminal process, and local and state programs should have adequate resources to effectively deal with crime victims. States have taken the lead in protecting the rights of crime victims, and it is time for the federal government to follow suit. South Dakota provides a number of specific ``victims rights'' including the right to restitution, notices of scheduled hearings and releases, an explanation of the criminal charges and process, and the opportunity to present a written or oral victim impact statement at trial. South Dakota also has victim/witness assistants in many of the prosecutor's offices across the state who work with crime victims on a daily basis. I am a cosponsor of the Crime Victims Assistance Act which enhances victims' rights for federal crimes and provides several grants for state and local prosecutors, judges, prison employees, and law enforcement officials to improve their handling of crime victims as well. However, instead of passing this important piece of legislation that would have an immediate impact on state and local efforts to improve crime victims services, some in Congress prefer to focus their attention on proposals to amend the United States Constitution. I have reservations about amending the constitution while Congress has the ability to enact legislation instead to accomplish the same goal. I am more concerned that this focus on a constitutional amendment has slowed the pace of crime victim legislation over the past several years. It is critical that Congress pass and the President sign into law the Crime Victims Assistance Act this year. In addition to the Crime Victims Assistance Act, Congress must pass this year the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA II). 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. South Dakota organizations have received $6.7 million in federal funding for domestic abuse programs and $1.6 million in federal funding for battered women's shelters. 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 more women are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile accidents and cancer deaths combined. Local and state officials should have access to more--not fewer--resources to address domestic violence, and it is critical that programs authorized through VAWA II receive stable levels of funding for the next five years. Supporters of a constitutional amendment for crime victims have withdrawn their proposal from consideration on the Senate floor this year. I am hopeful that my colleagues will seize this opportunity to continue the very valuable discussion on crime victims' rights and work to pass the Crime Victims Assistance Act and VAWA II as soon as possible.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the South Dakota State Medical Association (SDSMA) Alliance. This year the SDSMA Alliance will celebrate its 90th anniversary, making it the oldest continuous medical Alliance in the United States. For ninety years, this physicians' spouses organization has proudly been the volunteer hands and voices of the South Dakota State Medical Association. Though their accomplishments may not be always easily enumerated or quantified, their impact has been felt across every mile of the state of South Dakota. The SDSMA Alliance has led or united with other organizations in an effort to insure that our communities are healthier and safer. Members of the SDSMA Alliance have always reached out to feed the hungry, give warmth to those who were cold, provide shelter and safety to the abused, and bring smiles and joy to children in need of books or toys. Health promotion and community projects are, indeed, the cornerstone of the Alliance. Oftentimes, the mission statement of an organization tells us all we need to know about the character of the individuals who have joined together. In the case of the SDSMA Alliance, this statement holds true once again. Their mission to promote public health, create safer communities, protect the patient-physician relationship, and generate funds to help educate future physicians is a testament to their desire to positively impact every South Dakota community in which their work is done. As just one example of the Alliance's hard work and dedication, last June they declared-not war-but peace on all school campuses throughout out state. Their focus was not just on guns and grenades, but bullying and fist fights, taunting and threats, intolerance and isolation, because that, as we all know, is where the problems usually begin. To emphasize the need to provide our children and educators with a safe school environment, the SDSMA Alliance launched a campaign to provide K-3rd grade students with conflict resolution and self-esteem building activities. Thousands of ``I Can Choose,'' ``I Can Be Safe,'' ``Hands Are Not For Hitting,'' and ``Be A Winner'' workbooks were distributed to schools and shelters throughout our state. Their goal was to arm children with self-esteem and to teach them how to make healthier and safer choices. It is efforts such as these that weave the fabric of our communities closer together and promote safe, learning environments for South Dakota's children. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize the South Dakota State Medical Association Alliance for ninety years of hard work and dedication to the health and safety of the people of South Dakota. I applaud the SDSMA Alliance's efforts to combat those forces in our society which would jeopardize the mental and physical wellness of any citizen. I sincerely thank the Alliance for their positive contributions to South Dakota's communities, and I hope that one day we can stand together and say, ``Mission accomplished.''

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 2000, 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 2000 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 last year spent $18.2 billion providing health insurance coverage to its estimated 4.12 million enrollees, spent 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 2000 were about 9.3 percent, mostly attributable to the cost increase in prescription drug claims. 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 pharmaceutical which cost between twenty-five and sixty percent less than brand-name pharmaceutical, resulting in an estimated average savings of fifteen to thirty dollars on each prescription filled. Generic pharmaceutical are widely accepted by both consumers and the medical profession, as the market share held by generic pharmaceutical 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 pharmaceutical represent only 8 percent of the total dollar volume spent on 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 legislative language requiring, to the extent feasible, a preference for the safe and cost-effective use of generic pharmaceutical 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 generic pharmaceutical 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 consumers 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 pharmaceutical by requiring the Food and Drug Administration, 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 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, we will see more discussion about how we provide Medicare coverage of prescription drugs and I hope that ultimately that's where we'll wind up some day. 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 2000 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 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 2000, 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 2000 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 last year spent $18.2 billion providing health insurance coverage to its estimated 4.12 million enrollees, spent 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 2000 were about 9.3 percent, mostly attributable to the cost increase in prescription drug claims. 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 pharmaceutical which cost between twenty-five and sixty percent less than brand-name pharmaceutical, resulting in an estimated average savings of fifteen to thirty dollars on each prescription filled. Generic pharmaceutical are widely accepted by both consumers and the medical profession, as the market share held by generic pharmaceutical 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 pharmaceutical represent only 8 percent of the total dollar volume spent on 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 legislative language requiring, to the extent feasible, a preference for the safe and cost-effective use of generic pharmaceutical 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 generic pharmaceutical 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 consumers 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 pharmaceutical by requiring the Food and Drug Administration, 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 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, we will see more discussion about how we provide Medicare coverage of prescription drugs and I hope that ultimately that's where we'll wind up some day. 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 2000 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 text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the yielding of time by the gentleman from Nevada. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes, and following my remarks, Senator Collins of Maine be recognized to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act. I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished Senator Collins of Maine in bringing this important issue to the Senate floor today. 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, without this update the current GI Bill can no longer deliver these results and fails in its promise to recruits and service members. The legislation that Senator Collins and I are introducing today will take an important first step in modernizing the GI Bill. Over 96% 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. GI Bill benefits have not kept pace with increased costs of education. During the 1995-96 school year, the basic benefit paid under the Montgomery GI Bill offset only 36% of average total education costs. There is wide 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 only 55% of that cost. My legislation creates that benchmark by indexing the GI Bill to the costs of attending the average four-year public institution as a commuter student. For example, those costs for the 1999-2000 academic year were $8,774. The Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act would thereby require 36 monthly stipends of $975 for a total GI Bill benefit of $35,100. This benchmark cost will be updated annually by the College Board in order for the GI Bill to keep pace. I am pleased that my legislation has the bipartisan support of Senator Collins and the overwhelming support of the Partnership for Veterans' Education. This organization includes over 45 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 Enlisted Association. Several proposals have been introduced in the House that would address the shortfalls of the current GI Bill, and I look forward to working with members of the House and my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue. As the parent of a son who served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia and who is currently deployed in Kosovo, these military ``quality of life'' challenges are particularly apparent to me. Making the GI Bill pay for viable educational opportunity makes as much sense today as it did following World War II. The very modest cost of improving the GI Bill will result in net gains to our military and our society. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act. I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished Senator Collins of Maine in bringing this important issue to the Senate floor today. 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, without this update the current GI Bill can no longer deliver these results and fails in its promise to recruits and service members. The legislation that Senator Collins and I are introducing today will take an important first step in modernizing the GI Bill. Over 96% 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. GI Bill benefits have not kept pace with increased costs of education. During the 1995-96 school year, the basic benefit paid under the Montgomery GI Bill offset only 36% of average total education costs. There is wide 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 only 55% of that cost. My legislation creates that benchmark by indexing the GI Bill to the costs of attending the average four-year public institution as a commuter student. For example, those costs for the 1999-2000 academic year were $8,774. The Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act would thereby require 36 monthly stipends of $975 for a total GI Bill benefit of $35,100. This benchmark cost will be updated annually by the College Board in order for the GI Bill to keep pace. I am pleased that my legislation has the bipartisan support of Senator Collins and the overwhelming support of the Partnership for Veterans' Education. This organization includes over 45 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 Enlisted Association. Several proposals have been introduced in the House that would address the shortfalls of the current GI Bill, and I look forward to working with members of the House and my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue. As the parent of a son who served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia and who is currently deployed in Kosovo, these military ``quality of life'' challenges are particularly apparent to me. Making the GI Bill pay for viable educational opportunity makes as much sense today as it did following World War II. The very modest cost of improving the GI Bill will result in net gains to our military and our society. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senators Wellstone, Domenici, and Craig for working out an agreement on a veterans amendment which increases outlays for veterans' health care by $500 million over the Budget Committee's level in each year of the budget resolution and raises the funding to the level requested in the veterans' Independent Budget, a $1.9 billion, increase over fiscal year 2000. This level of funding is advocated by 40 veterans groups and medical societies. I urge all Senators to support this critically important amendment which ensures adequate funding for veterans over a 5-year period.

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2934.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I applaud anybody who attempts to address issues of veterans' health care. However, I think it is regrettable that the Senator from Pennsylvania chose not to work in a bipartisan fashion with Senators Craig, Wellstone, myself, and other veterans organizations across the country with our amendment that we will be offering very shortly, which has a longer-term, 5-year fix for the veterans' health care funding shortfall. Our amendment will far more significantly address the problems with veterans' health care in this Nation. The one offered by Senator Santorum is a fine step, in a small sense. I have no problems supporting it. I think the body needs to understand that we will come to a far more significant amendment shortly. The amendment this morning will deal with a 5-year approach to veterans' health care. I yield to Senator Wellstone.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, for his extraordinary work on this issue. He has long been a champion of veterans in our Nation. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with him on this and many other issues. I am appreciative of Chairman Domenici's effort to secure a $1.4 billion increase in outlays in the budget. We have come a considerable distance from a year ago, when I was offering on this floor a $3 billion increase in veterans' health care appropriations which was necessary at that time to catch up after 3 years of frozen VA budgets. Of the $3 billion that was passed, ultimately, by the time the Appropriations Committee was done, we had about $1.7 billion. Even so, it was a significant increase. It has done a lot to breathe additional viability into our VA health care system. This year, Senator Domenici has proposed a $1.4 billion increase. That is encouraging. However, the Authoritative Independent Budget produced by 40 different veterans groups and medical societies-- including Amvets and Disabled American Vets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW--reminds us that even then we still need an additional $500 million in outlays over the Budget Committee's level to raise the funding level to the point where it is requested in the independent budget of a $1.9 billion increase for fiscal 2000. This amendment pays for this. This amendment would get us to that needed level. We need to make a fundamental decision in this body about where our priorities lie. We are talking now about multibillion-dollar surpluses in the Federal budget over the coming years. We ought to be cautious about whether they materialize or not, but certainly we can be optimistic that we will be in black ink in the coming years. The question then is, Are we going to fully fund the veterans' health care programs at the level the veterans organizations themselves contend--I think rightfully so--is necessary? Are we going to put them as a first priority honoring those people who put their lives on the line and made our liberties possible or are we going to fall back to the point where, again, we only use the dollars that are left over after other things have been done? To me, this ought to be a first-priority item. We have an opportunity on the floor this evening to make it very clear to our colleagues in the other body that, in fact, veterans' health care is a first priority item and that we will take care of that. When we are done with dealing with veterans' health care issues, we will then move on to whatever our other priorities might be, whether they be tax cuts, education, health care, or other matters facing the country. This ought to be at the top or near the top of our agenda as we debate the look of the Federal budget in this coming year. I applaud the constructive steps that have been taken on veterans' health care. I certainly am appreciative of the work of Senator Wellstone in helping to raise the visibility of this issue. At this juncture, as we shape this budget resolution which creates a roadmap, which creates the parameters for where the appropriations committees will go next, we need to send them this kind of message that, in fact, we want full funding for veterans' health care. This is our opportunity to make that statement. We should not let this opportunity go by without making it clear that we are committed to this reasonable level of funding, after those many years of frozen VA budgets, that the VA requires. Mr. President, I yield back my time. Amendment No. 2931

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senate yesterday approved my amendment to the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution that establishes a reserve fund which creates room in the Senate budget resolution for military retiree health care improvements. I thank Budget Committee Chairman Domenici for working with me and supporters of my amendment. I also want to recognize the driving force behind this issue: the thousands of military retirees and their dependents across this country who have established an impressive grassroots effort. Their work, in conjunction with the efforts of the Retired Enlisted Association, the National Association of Uniformed Services, the National Military and Veterans Association, and the Retired Officers Association, have brought military health care to the forefront. My amendment would allow the Senate Armed Services Committee to increase spending on military retiree health care while considering the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization bill. It is important to note that my amendment must also be approved by the House and Senate conference committee on the budget resolution in order for the Senate Armed Services Committee to use the reserve fund. A promise of lifetime health care has been broken. Testimony from military recruiters themselves, along with copies of recruitment literature dating back to World War II, show that health care was promised to active duty personnel and their families upon the personnel's retirement. However, the creation on June 7, 1956, of space-available care for military retirees at military hospitals has led to a broken promise of health care coverage for these men and women and their families. Post- cold-war downsizing of military bases and their medical services have left many retirees out in the cold. A final insult is the fact that military retirees and their dependents are kicked off of the military's health care system, Tricare, upon turning age 65. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry Shelton, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said: ``Sir, I think the first thing we need to do is make sure that we acknowledge our commitment to the retirees for their years of service and for what we basically committed to at the time that they were recruited into the armed forces.'' Defense Secretary William Cohen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said: ``We have made a pledge, whether it's legal or not, it's a moral obligation that we will take care of all those who served, retired veterans and their families, and we have not done so.'' My oldest son, Brooks, served as a peacekeeper with the United States Army in Bosnia, and he was recently deployed to Kosovo. I know how important ``quality of life'' issues are to military personnel and their families. Our country asks young men and women to willingly work in combat zones and receive minimal pay compared to the private sector. As compensation, military personnel have been promised that their health care needs and those of their families will be taken care of now and upon retirement. Despite the best efforts of many talented health care providers in the military, this promise has been broken, and it is impacting a young man or woman's decision to make a career of the military. The question is whether Members of Congress want to make military retiree health care a priority instead of an afterthought. I am hopeful that, working on a bipartisan approach similar to that seen with my reserve fund amendment, we in Congress can choose military retiree health care as a priority this session.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his leadership on this issue. He has been of great assistance to us. When we ultimately pass this legislation, a great share of credit goes to the Senator. I also note that the second-degree amendment, which is pending, is a bipartisan amendment. I express appreciation particularly to Senators Thomas of Wyoming and Grams of Minnesota for their work and their staffs' work on this legislation. Those two Senators share a very great concern for access to local programming for rural residents. I am appreciative of that kind of bipartisan cooperation on this second- degree amendment. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2097, which will help provide local broadcast coverage for all Americans. Under legislation we passed last year, satellite companies are for the first time free to broadcast local network broadcasting into local markets. What we are doing today will make that benefit a reality for Americans who live outside the largest 40 television markets across America. As do many colleagues, I represent a State with rural viewers who should not be left out of the information age. South Dakota is one of the 16 States that do not have a single city among the top 70 markets. Without this loan guarantee, markets such as Sioux Falls and Rapid City simply will not get local service, despite the fact there is a great need for the reception of that local broadcasting. This proposal is about more than just providing sports or entertainment programming over local channels. It is a critical way to receive important local news, public affairs, storm information, road reports, public safety, school closings, and so on. Rural Americans need the same opportunity to access their local networks as do our urban friends, and this legislation would go a long way toward making that a reality. I want to thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Gramm, for his hard work on this important issue. He correctly raised several issues which have strengthened this bill, adding critical taxpayer protections to the program. I want to thank Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the Banking Committee for his hard work on this legislation as well. As a sign of the support we have for this package, I have agreed with Senators Gramm and Sarbanes to oppose all amendments to the bill with one exception. I will be offering shortly an amendment to correct a significant flaw in this bill. Other than that one change, I believe we have produced a substantive bill that will produce this service to all Americans without resorting to risks for the American taxpayers. S. 2097 provides an 80 percent guarantee of projects to bring local to local to all markets. The remaining 20 percent will be private capital provided by qualified lenders. These private capital will bring market discipline to the program. No entity will fund a project it has not scrutinized, that it does not believe will succeed. We have created an oversight board consisting of the Federal Reserve Chairman, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Agriculture. This board will review loan applicants with a eye toward fiscal discipline. The Fed and Treasury are especially tasked with ensuring that the taxpayer dollars are protected. They will look carefully at the proposals and support projects that will work. The USDA brings expertise in rural America to this venture. The experience of the Rural Utilities Service, with its $40 billion loan portfolio and phenomenally low default rate, will make this a sound venture. The combination of these experts plus the market discipline of a lender with 20 percent of the project at risk, will screen applicants so only the soundest, most viable proposals are funded. With this program, we can take a giant step for rural America. All of our citizens will be enabled to follow local events. In states like South Dakota, wide stretches of area are not served by any form of local programming; this bill for the first time makes that possible. There is one area where the bill could be improved. The bill in its current form requires that lenders be FDIC insured to participate in the program. This would effectively eliminate rural electric cooperatives and telephone systems from participation in the program. This limitation excludes private finance corporations that have years of experience lending to rural utilities (including institutions that have years of experience in lending guaranteed loans). It would also exclude institutions with billions of dollars of assets, that operate on a national basis, are highly rated by the rating agencies and file with the Securities Exchange Commission. The amendment I will be offering is supported by Senators Thomas and Grams and others. It is bipartisan in nature. It simply allows qualified lenders with experience and expertise in these types of programs to participate in the funding subject to board approval, keeping in mind always that everything we do must be approved by the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and USDA. As an example, Cooperative Financing Corporation is AA rated and considered to be ``the best investment in the high quality electric utility sector'' by Shearson Lehman. These are the types of lenders that should be potentially part of this program. I encourage my colleagues to support rural America by making S. 2097 more likely to successfully provide local to local to smaller markets. My amendment provides, but does not mandate, alternate financing options. The purpose behind the change is to allow participants in the program to seek the lowest possible interest rate. Those dollars saved on interest make the program more likely to succeed, and improve the viability of the program, making it more likely the loans will be repaid without recourse to the guarantee. This issue has aroused the greatest level of constituent concern in quite some time in my State. With this amendment to S. 2097, we will provide a fiscally responsible, prudent response to the concerns raised by thousands of our constituents. The issue which Senator Gramm has ably outlined this morning is in response to a concern Senators Thomas and Grams and I also share but to which we take a different approach. The view of those of us who will be offering our amendment as a second-degree amendment, I believe, to Senator Grams' amendment would be to recognize that institutions that have years of experience in lending to rural electric and telephone cooperatives should not be excluded from participation. Our amendment simply allows qualified lenders that have experience and expertise in these kinds of programs to participate subject to board approval. It will also require eligible lenders that have at least one issue of outstanding debt that is rated in one of the three categories rated by a national statistical rating agency. This will ensure that an expanded list of lenders will have subjected themselves to rigorous market discipline. The CFC and other private lenders have substantial experience providing multiple million-dollar loans in cooperative environments and provide important protections in rural areas. We encourage all of our colleagues to support rural America by supporting S. 2097. We are more likely to succeed in doing that by providing local-to-local programming to these smaller markets. Mr. President, I do not have any additional Members on the floor at the moment with opening remarks. I withhold my time but yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, if I might take 1 minute--I know there are a number of others who want to address this legislation, and I have to return to the Budget Committee as well for a series of votes--let me observe, having listened carefully to the chairman's remarks, that I think the differences we have are fairly straightforward, in a sense. On the one hand, our amendment says we have already come up with some safety provisions with an 80-percent guarantee rather than 100 percent, and so on. But what we are suggesting is that guidelines be adopted by the board, by Mr. Greenspan, by Treasury, and by USDA. They certainly have it within their prerogative to develop whatever guidelines they feel appropriate to ensure that the lending practices are secure and sound from the perspective of the taxpayers. The Senator from Texas, rather than relying on the Fed, the Treasury and USDA, is suggesting that he will impose guidelines statutorily. We now have, I believe, the consequence of, in effect, shutting out the CFC from participating in the program. I think we have a solid piece of legislation with the Johnson-Thomas- Grams amendment. We would then turn to the board as the chief instrument for any further fine-tuning of what kind of provisions might be helpful to them in seeing to it that these loans are handled in due course and in the proper fashion. I think that is the difference we have between the underlying Gramm amendment and our second-degree amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to object, if I might inquire of the Senator so I am clear about this, we have a number of Members who would like to speak to the Senator's amendment and the second-degree amendment. I assume they will have an opportunity in that context.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.