Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleagues who have been talking over this past week or so about one of the most critical issues facing America today relative to health care, and that is the lack of affordability and lack of access to prescription drugs for all of our citizens, but particularly for seniors in America. As I go home across my State of South Dakota, one of the issues I hear the most about in every community I go to--large and small--is the cost of prescription drugs. Medicare was created by President Lyndon Johnson as one of the Great Society programs back in the 1960s. At that time, the great unmet health care need for American seniors was the cost of hospitalization. Medicare is not a perfect program, but it has gone a long way toward solving the enormous problem seniors faced at that time--the cost of hospitalization. But no prescription drug benefit was added back then, and medicine has changed radically over the course of the last 35 years. There is a greater reliance on prescription drugs now. Drugs have become increasingly sophisticated. People are living longer. The quality of their lives have been enhanced by the availability--where they can afford it--of prescription drugs. But now the cost of prescription drugs is the highest expenditure and highest financial burden of all on seniors' health care needs next only to the cost of health insurance premiums themselves. Yet while there is a great deal of rhetoric around Washington, there has been too little action up until now on this profound issue. I wind up talking to a great many seniors in particular on this issue. In my home State of South Dakota where we have a lot of people who are former farmers, ranchers, small business people, and employees of small business who had no deluxe pension plan or health plan to fall back on, for a great many of them Social Security is their lion's share if not their total retirement benefit. Medicare is their key health care benefit. Thirty-five percent of seniors in America today have no Medigap coverage whatsoever. In South Dakota that rate would be even higher, and people wind up caught in a terrible predicament. It has put a tremendous financial burden on a great many people who very frequently have hundreds of dollars a month in prescription drug costs. But the problem is all the more challenging for the great many South Dakotans I talk to who have no Medigap policy, who cannot afford that, and then who wind up literally choosing between groceries and staying on their prescriptions. What happens then is all too often they either don't fill the prescription or they take half of the pills or they don't take the pill until they become ill again at which time again they show up at the emergency room with an acute illness. Then Medicare picks up the tab. Then the taxpayers pick up that cost at a much higher cost than would have been the instance if they had been able to stay on prescription drugs in the first place. We wind up with a growing problem, which is the inflationary rate for the cost of prescription drugs. They are going up far higher than the rate of inflation for the rest of the economy. People are on relatively fixed incomes. They are on Social Security and do not have the means oftentimes to pay for any of these bills at all, or pay for enough of them. All too often what little COLA--cost-of-living adjustment--comes along with Social Security is either consumed entirely by the Medicare premium increase or other cost-of- living increases before they even get to deal with the cost of prescription drugs. I was in a community in South Dakota not too long ago talking to some seniors at a senior center. This is a phenomenon I had never heard ever before, frankly, where they were telling me--these are some seniors who are a little better off than many of the people I talked to; they have a little more financial means--they were going to Texas and to Arizona to snowbird during the winter, but they are paying for the entire cost of their snowbird expense by going across the line to Mexico and buying their prescription drugs for less than half of what they were paying in the United States. The prescription drugs they are buying in foreign countries for half the price are the same branded FDA-approved drugs that people buy in the U.S. It is an outrage when you think about American citizens having to go to Canada, having to go to Mexico, and going other places to get their medication cheaper. It seems sometimes that nobody in the industrialized democratic world pays bills anything like our seniors pay or our citizens in general pay for prescription drugs because it isn't only seniors, although clearly seniors who comprise about 12 percent of the United States population consume well over a third of the prescription drugs. That isn't surprising given the fact that as people grow older they run into health care problems that are more intense and that will require the attention of prescription drugs. But there has to be a remedy for this. I appreciate we are talking now about a Medicare benefit that would include prescription drugs. But, frankly, the bipartisan agreement isn't there yet. I am hopeful it will be during the course of this short legislative year. There are a lot of people out there who I think are cynical about how much Congress is going to accomplish this year given the fact it is a Presidential year, and all too often time is spent trying to paint differences, drawing lines and drawing the parties apart than coming together in a bipartisan kind of cooperation that I think the American public deserve and what they want to see happen. I think most Americans are not left- or right-wingers, but they want the Government to work fairly efficiently and come together on these key issues. This is one where I believe we can find some common ground on--not necessarily with huge public expenditures, although if we are going to have a Medicare benefit in the end some additional budgetary implications are certainly involved. And, yes, I think it can be addressed without some massive bureaucracy. We can do that as well, although I worry some when I see these ``Flo ads'' on TV paid by the pharmaceutical industry having to hire an actress to portray a senior by the name of Flo who then goes on about her worries that somehow the Government might do something about prescription drugs and that would be having the Government enter the medicine chest. This is a fear tactic. It is designed to make people worry that if Congress does anything about the cost of prescription drugs somehow that will involve some sort of intrusive federalization of our health care. That is a foolish argument and, unfortunately, one that is backed by millions of dollars of TV ads and one that I think is cynical in terms of trying to dissuade people from believing that there are steps we can take so the United States no longer is the only democracy in the world paying the kind of bills that we pay. I had a study done by one of our committees in the other body to look at the prescription drug costs in South Dakota, and to also look at costs around the world. This is no surprise. I have long heard talk about going to Winnipeg and going to Mexico to buy drugs for less. I thought perhaps that was anecdotal, and that perhaps it was a systemic situation, but in fact it is reality. The recent studies indicate that if you go to Canada, or to Mexico, or to France, or to Britain, or to Germany, or to Italy, or to virtually any other industrialized democracy, the cost of prescription drugs is about half what it is in the United States. Nobody pays the kind of bills we pay in the United States. We pay about double what anybody else in the industrialized world pays. That to me is so utterly unacceptable and unfair. This all comes at a time of great national prosperity overall--though you wouldn't always know that in rural America. The great pharmaceutical industry is making profits running about three times higher than any other sector of the American economy. They are enormous profits. Of course, we always hear pleas that if we had to develop drugs at a reasonable price, as everything else in the world, that would negatively impact our ability to do research. It is nonsense. The profits being earned are far higher than a research budget. We want the pharmaceutical industry to make a reasonable profit. We want them to invest money in research. But they make money off research. That is what gives them new things to sell. I don't think that some reduced cost for American citizens in line with what everyone else in the world is paying is going to have some sort of catastrophic consequence with the pharmaceutical industry at all. All we are looking at is a fair deal, one more consistent with what everybody else gets. There are a couple of ways to approach this. Keeping in mind that if we do nothing not only is the current severe problem going to grow even worse, it is going to grow worse because the inflationary numbers for prescription drugs are increasingly going up far higher than the rate of inflation. There are a couple of different responses that I think we could take in this that do not require us to wait around until we reach some sort of grand, bipartisan compromise under the entire revamping of Medicare. Something is going to have to be done long term about Medicare. We all know that. I am not sure if this is the year it is likely to happen as we get into sort of a Presidential-politics-strewn year and it doesn't even happen. We don't have to wait until then to do something. I sponsored, with my colleague Senator Kennedy, S. 731, the Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act. There is a corresponding bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 664, with over 140 cosponsors. This legislation simply says to the pharmaceutical industry that we will not set prices, we will not have a bureaucracy sitting in the basement of a building in Washington trying to figure out a fair profit. Some suggest that is what we ought to do. We have done that with utilities. Many States have public utility commissions. Recognizing there is no competition in certain sectors of America's economies, they set what a fair profit is and what the prices and profit will be. That is not where I am going with this legislation despite the fact many other countries do. This legislation is consistent with free market. It is nonbureaucratic. It simply says to the pharmaceutical industry, if this industry is going to sell their products to other favored buyers, then cut Medicare beneficiaries, seniors and the disabled on Medicare, in on the deal, too. Right now a large HMO or Federal agency, is buying prescription drugs at 40 percent to 50 percent less than what everybody else in the U.S. is paying. This proposal does not provide free drugs for anyone, but it does put American seniors and those disabled individuals on Medicare, who are the ones that purchase the majority of prescription drugs in this country, on the same playing field as citizens of other nations, who pay less. When the pharmaceutical industry sells their products to favored customers such as large HMOs, Federal agencies, or other countries for that matter, they are not selling the drugs at a loss. They are making a very handsome profit. We are suggesting if that is enough profit for the industry from those customers, why not the same for American citizens? Why not give the same price system to American citizens? Perhaps their negotiated price will go up; it cannot go higher than what it already is for American citizens. We are suggesting, do not discriminate against American citizens, and certainly not against American seniors. This legislation involves no price fixing, it involves no bureaucracy, it involves no tax dollars. I am pleased in my home State of South Dakota, we now have over 5,000 citizens who have written to me asking to be named as ``Citizen Cosponsors'' my legislation, S. 731, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. I invite other people and my fellow colleagues who believe we need to do something about this issue now, who believe there should be no discrimination against American seniors, to join me as a Citizen Cosponsor. Contact me at my office in Washington. I am happy to sign citizens and my colleagues on. We will indicate to the world this is not an issue that will go away. It is an issue that has enormous grass roots support and one that we can do something now about to help with the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. We have a second bill, as well, that Senator Dorgan, my colleague from North Dakota, has been the principal sponsor of that takes a somewhat similar tact--again, involving no bureaucracy, no tax dollars. I call it ``what is good for the goose is good for the gander'' legislation, but the formal name of the bill is the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, S. 1191. This legislation says if companies sell these drugs to Canada, Mexico, or elsewhere, allow our pharmacies to reimport these drugs back into the United States. Currently, a citizen can go to these other countries and pick up about a month's supply of drugs for their own personal use, but that is it. We would monitor the drugs to make sure they are not tampered with; that is not an insurmountable problem. In effect, every other country in the Western World seems to have found a way to address this issue, except the U.S. The world's greatest democracy, the world's greatest economic and military power, is the only country that seems not to have found something to address these costs. We say let the drugs be imported back into the United States. We will ride piggyback on the progressive policies of other countries where the drugs have been sold for profit, but are branded FDA-approved drugs; bring them back into the United States. Why should South Dakotans have to get on a bus and go to Winnipeg? Why should they have to take a side trip during the wintertime to Mexico? Why should any of this be necessary? This is foolishness. We deserve far better. There are some who say this is common sense; why is there any controversy? The resistance to some of this legislation has been fierce. The pharmaceutical industry has been running attack ads against my colleagues in the other body who have sponsored this legislation. Television ads, radio ads, and print ads can be intimidating. I am hopeful we can sit down at the table together. I don't want to demonize or villainize the pharmaceutical industry. We are proud of the research and development that they do. We want them to continue doing that. We want them to continue to make a profit. This is not some sort of confiscatory plan. We want them to sit down in good faith. If not, we will proceed anyway. This issue has become too serious. It has to do with the health care integrity of our Nation. I believe we can make progress with these two middle-of-the-road kind of bills, while at the same time working with the President who, to his great credit, has been talking about ways we can add Medicare prescription drug coverage to our health care system in this country. If we do that, we will have resolved one of the most severe problems our country faces this year. We need to go on to broader range Medicare reforms. There are things that will have to happen with Social Security, as well. We all know that and hopefully we can reach some bipartisan resolution of those issues. In the meantime, every single day that goes by, there are South Dakota seniors and disabled individuals with high prescription drug bills, seniors from all over the country, who are skipping meals, who are not taking the drugs they should be taking, who are making terrible choices that the citizens of the world's richest democracy should not be compelled to make. It is just unconscionable that people are given these choices. We should not have to make those decisions. We should not have people showing up with acute illnesses in our emergency room where taxpayers then pick up the tab because they were not able to afford the prescription drugs they need. There are a great many core issues we need to debate this year, from world trade issues to the scope and the nature of the Federal budget, to education and so on. However, I submit that among the very top tier of issues we need to resolve before this Congress goes home this fall, before it returns to more politics and campaigning, is to take up these two bills and to pass needed legislation to address the issue of prescription drug affordability. I have no ego involved in the sponsorship here. We need to deal constructively now, this year, with the cost of prescription drugs, certainly for seniors, and hopefully for the entire American public. If we do that, this will have been a year well spent. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my good friend, the Honorable Ikram U. Khan, M.D. I have had the honor of knowing Ikram for several years and I am fortunate we have developed a good friendship. Because of that friendship, I am doubly pleased that Ikram has been appointed by President Clinton to the Board of Regents for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. This is an extremely prestigious appointment, one that Ikram richly deserves. During his twenty-one years of private practice, he has served not only his patients and the institution of medicine, but also his community and state. He has been honored by his hometown of Las Vegas and various local organizations for his community service and achievements. He has been nominated to serve on Nevada's State Board of Medical Examiners and on the state Legislature's Health Care Cost Containment committee. On the national scene, Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich, in 1993, asked Ikram to adviser her on health care delivery issues specific to Medicare, and President Clinton, in 1995, recognized Ikram for his health care reform efforts. He is a very fine man, and his years of dedication to military medicine and to the health industry in general ensures he will perform a great service in this position. Mr. President, I would like to again congratulate my friend, Dr. Ikram Khan, on his appointment to the Board of Regents and wish him the best on his new challenges managing the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. I trust the University and Secretary Cohen will find him a valuable asset and a skilled adviser.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the passing of a dear friend and counselor, Mr. Wayne ``Haus'' Hauschild of Brookings, South Dakota. Because of our state's immigrant past, many of my constituents are not originally from South Dakota. Wayne Hauschild is a good example. Born and raised in Davenport, Iowa, it wasn't until 1954 that, after graduating from Saint Ambrose College and serving in the U.S. Navy, he settled in Brookings. For his remaining forty-six years, Wayne Hauschild served the community of Brookings in many capacities. For a remarkable thirty-nine years, he taught high school U.S. history and government. In addition to his teaching duties, he coached high school basketball, football, golf, tennis, and the Brookings Cubs and American Legion baseball teams. His government service began as a representative to the South Dakota State Legislature where he served five terms from 1971 to 1980. Though he retired from teaching in 1993, he remained a faithful servant of the public, serving as Brookings mayor from 1993 to 1999, presiding over Brookings changed to the city manager form of municipal government. Whenever someone mentions Wayne Hauschild, I think of dedication. As a State Legislator and as Brookings mayor, he was dedicated to improving the lives of his neighbors and his fellow South Dakotans. As a teacher of thirty-nine years, he was dedicated to educating young people, and ensuring they remember the importance of civic participation and the lessons of history when that fundamental right is deprived. As a coach, he was dedicated to instilling the values of sportsmanship, fairplay, and hardwork. As all these things, he was always a father and a husband, dedicated to his family. I will truly miss him, because, to me, he was always a dedicated friend. Mr. President, this is a sad time where we are forced to bid farewell to a man who was a fixture of the Brookings community for the last forty-six years. However, this is also a time when we can remember a dedicated man who led a truly extraordinary life, no matter the measure.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly congratulate two of my constituents, Mr. Leonard Lone Hill and Mr. Warren Giago, both of Porcupine, SD. I am pleased to announce to my colleagues that Mr. Lone Hill and Mr. Giago, partners in Thunder Cloud Construction, a Porcupine-based construction company, have been honored by the Small Business Administration as winners of the 1999 Minority Small Business People of the Year for South Dakota. As my colleagues may know, Porcupine is located in Shannon County on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Highlighted by the President during his New Markets Initiative tour, Shannon County is the poorest county in the country. Thunder Cloud Construction is working to reverse the trend of Native American poverty on the Reservation by not only hiring minority workers, but by providing on-the-job training for new, unskilled employees. The activities of the company and its two owners, result not only in participation in the development of community infrastructure and resources but also a substantial contribution to economic growth and development of the Pine Ridge Reservation. Among its achievements, Thunder Cloud has recently completed a shelter for homeless children, the Casey Family Building. Following last years devastating tornadoes, the company won a substantial contract to build foundations and basements for twenty-two units of replacement housing. Mr. President, Leonard Lone Hill and Warren Giago of Thunder Cloud Construction richly deserve this honor. After five years in business, they have twenty-two employees on the payroll and annual sales of $277,500. Their work has vastly improved the economic landscape of Porcupine and the Pine Ridge Reservation, and is a great model for other aspiring businessmen to follow. They have overcome many obstacles and I look forward to all of their future successes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues of a recent act of great charity by one of my constituents, Ms. Debbie Laakso of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In an astonishing act of kindness, the single mother of four donated a kidney to her friend and former boss, Verle Jucht. The odd twist is that Debbie and Verle met at John Morrell and Company where Verle was Debbie's supervisor. Though they separated as colleagues in 1993, they surprisingly remained friends for the last six years. When Verle's kidney began to fail last year, Debbie gave him hers. Knowing her jovial nature, Verle and his wife, Colleen, thought their old friend was kidding when she first offered to donate. Luckily, Debbie and Verle were a match, and after surgery last November, both are doing well. This story, Mr. President, is a great testament to the truly good and giving nature of people. I rise today to thank Debbie Laakso for her good nature and good humor and to congratulate her and Verle Jucht on their bravery and courage. Debbie serves as a model of goodness and friendship for all Americans, and their story is an account for all of the importance of the ``Gift of Life.''

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Paul Coverdell and Senator John McCain today in introducing the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act. This legislation honors our nation's commitment to the men and women who served in the military by upholding the promise of health care coverage in return for their selfless dedication. Last year, the Senate began to address critical recruitment and retention problems currently facing our nation's armed services. The pay table adjustments and retirement reform enacted in the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Authorization bill were both long overdue improvements for our active duty military personnel. However, these improvements do not solve our country's difficulty in recruiting and keeping the best and the brightest in the military. In order to maintain a strong military for now and in the future, our country must show that it will honor its commitment to military retirees and veterans as well. For years, men and women who joined the military were promised lifetime health care coverage for themselves and their dependents. Prior to June 7, 1956, no statutory health care plan existed for military personnel. Even when the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) was enacted that year, the health care coverage was dependent upon the space available at military treatment facilities. Post-Cold War downsizing, base closures, and the reduction of health care services at military bases have limited the health care options available to military retirees. In my home state of South Dakota, I have heard from many military retirees who are forced to drive hundreds of miles to receive care. As a final disgrace, military retirees are currently kicked off the military's Tricare health care system when they turn 65. This is a slap in the face to those men and women who have sacrificed their livelihood to keep our country safe from threats at home and abroad. The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act restores adequate health care coverage to all military retirees. For those retirees who entered the armed services before June 7, 1956, when CHAMPUS was created, my legislation will honor the promise of health care coverage for life. This will be accomplished by allowing military retirees to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), with the United States paying 100 percent of the costs. Military retirees who joined the armed services after space-available care was enacted into law in 1956 will be allowed to enroll in FEHBP or continue to participate in Tricare--even after they turn 65. These military retirees who choose to enroll in FEHBP will pay the same premiums and fees as all other federal employees in the program. The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act has been endorsed by the National Military and Veterans Alliance and its member organizations. Companion legislation in the House of Representatives already has over 220 bipartisan cosponsors thanks to unprecedented grassroots support by military retirees nationwide. A promise made should be a promise kept. We owe it to our country's military retirees to provide them with the health care they were promised. These men and women stood ready to answer the call to defend our rights, anytime and anywhere. It is now our duty to answer their calls for better health care. We also owe it to ourselves to help attract and keep qualified men and women in our military by showing potential recruits and active duty personnel that our country honors its commitment to those who serve it. We have a long way to go, but I will continue to work to make sure our country's active duty personnel, military retirees, and veterans receive the benefits they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objecton, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from South Dakota, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, as a cosponsor of the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place Act, which will establish the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Ft. Pierre, South Dakota. The Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place would be an important cultural and interpretive center, in part to compliment the National Lewis and Clark Trail, but with the unique perspective of the Sioux tribes and the impact of the Lewis and Clark encounter on tribal culture and economics. During the Lewis and Clark expedition, Captains Merriweather Lewis and William Clark anchored their river boats where the Wakpa Sica, or Bad River, flows into the Missouri. After four months of travel from St. Louis, history was made on September 24, 1804. The next day 44 men landed on the west bank of the Missouri and paraded under the United States flag. These men then joined Chief Black Buffalo and braves from the Teton Sioux for council in the chief's buffalo skin lodge. This was a key and pivotal meeting between representatives of the great Sioux tribes and those of the United States of America. This meeting was less than amicable. Throughout the rest of South Dakotas history the relationship between native peoples and non-natives has not been a peaceful one. Today we are still facing the challenging experience of working and living together side by side. I am proud of the South Dakotans who set their differences aside and came together and created the Mni Wiconi water project. There is a growing need for a Reconciliation Place. The Reconciliation Place would occupy the site in which Captains Lewis and Clark, and the members of the tribes came together to meet for the first time--which is a fitting site to bring Indian and non- Indian peoples together. It is my hope that this center will bring people together to learn about the culture and the rich history this area of the United States holds. Through this understanding, it is my hope that we may be able to achieve better relations between Tribal and non-Tribal peoples. This project is a cultural center which will serve as a home for Sioux law, history, culture and arts for the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota peoples. It will also serve as a repository for Sioux historical documents, which are currently scattered throughout the West. Many native people do not have access to these documents. With the construction of this facility the native people will be able to house these documents close to home. This will allow interested parties to research their rich past. The Reconciliation Place will also be the home of the Sioux Nation Supreme Court. This will serve to be a stable legal setting to assist in achieving greater social and economic welfare in Indian Country. Increased legal stability will help promote business investment in the vast human resources that are situated on the reservations in my state. This will bring about more self sufficiency, and less reliance by tribes on the federal government. Similarly, the Native American Economic Development Council will be located in this same facility. This council will assist tribes and tribal members to provide opportunities for economic development. The council will assist in opening the doors to private investment and other resources that are designed to promote development and job creation. Mr. President, this focal point for Native American culture, law, and economic development assistance is desperately needed. It is apparent that there is a need to strengthen current, and build future understanding between Indian and non-Indian peoples, as well as promote the government-to-government relationship between the tribes and the United States. I urge my colleagues to join myself and Senator Daschle to support this legislation, and recognize the need for such an important center. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place Act, and that my statement be included in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to address an issue of critical importance to millions and millions of Americans, an issue I have come to the floor previously to discuss and an issue that has become one of my highest legislative priorities, the lack of affordable prescription drugs. Today, nearly thirty five percent of Medicare beneficiaries, 14 million people, have absolutely no coverage for prescription drugs. Unfortunately, these are also the same individuals who consume the majority of prescription drugs in our country. Studies indicate that eighty percent of retirees take at least one prescription drug every day and those over the age of sixty-five take on average, eighteen and a half prescription drugs per year. Older Americans spend a tremendous amount of money out of pocket on their health care expenses. It is estimated that seniors spend an average of fourteen percent on hospital admission costs, thirty one percent on physician visits, thirty four percent on prescription drugs and twenty one percent on other health care related expenses. Prescription drugs have become the number one health care expense for senior citizens in our country. I came to the floor a few weeks ago to talk about this very same issue, but I am addressing this issue again because I believe this matter is too critical for Congress to ignore. It appears as though Congress will not reach an agreement before we adjourn for the year, or even have a meaningful discussion, on how we will provide relief to the millions of needy seniors throughout our country and my state of South Dakota who struggle every day to pay for their medications. While prices for the prescription drugs most often used by older Americans are skyrocketing far beyond inflation, recently the pharmaceutical industry reveled in record breaking stock prices and an announcement of a proposed multi-billion dollar merger between Warner Lambert and American Home Products. This proposed deal would form the biggest merger in the history of the drug industry and create the largest drug maker in the world. The transaction between Warner Lambert and American Home Products is worth nearly seventy three billion dollars, billions more than the federal government spends on most of their thirteen individual appropriation bills. News of this proposed merger, prompted another drug industry giant, Pfizer, Inc. to announce a counter offer to buy Warner Lambert at a cost of eighty two and a half billion dollars. On the heels of the pharmaceutical industry's financial exploits, ``Families USA: The Voice for Health Care Consumers'' recently released a report indicating that more than two thirds of the fifty most commonly prescribed drugs for seniors increased in price nearly two to three times faster than the rate of inflation. Last year, wholesale prices for fifty prescriptions commonly filled by the elderly rose by six and a half percent even though the overall inflation rate that year was just one and a half percent. For example, the drug Lorazepam, used to treat Parkinson's disease, increased three hundred and eighty five percent over the last five years. The report also found that while the median profit for all Fortune five hundred companies was four and a half percent, manufacturers of drugs most commonly prescribed to seniors relished in profits at or above twenty percent in 1998. The findings in the Families USA study reflect similar results that I found in a study that I had requested from the House Government Reform Committee on drug prices paid by South Dakota seniors. The South Dakota study found that South Dakota's elderly pay more than twice as much for their prescription drugs as does a pharmaceutical company's favored customers, such as HMO's, large insurance companies or the federal government. The study found that price differentials are as high as one thousand four hundred and sixty nine percent for some drugs. For the last several months, I have been holding meetings in communities across South Dakota on the subject of prescription drug prices. The response from seniors and young people alike on this issue has been overwhelming to say the least. I have received nearly five thousand postcards and hundreds more letters in response to my request for South Dakotans to contact me with their opinions on this issue. I have asked South Dakotans to become a Citizen Cosponsor of the prescription drug legislation that I introduced with Senator Kennedy, called the Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act''. Our bill would allow Medicare beneficiaries access to the same low prescription drug prices that the drug companies offer their ``favored'' customers, such as HMO's, large insurance companies and the federal government. This bill ends the price discrimination that now exists against the segment of the society who rely on prescription drugs the most, older Americans. South Dakotans have told me that they support this effort to make prescription drugs affordable. Mr. President, we are forcing our senior citizens to make the unimaginable choice between ``heating and eating'' or buying their medication. This is a choice that no human being should have to make. With the proposed drug industry merger between Warner Lambert and American Home Products, and the recently released Families USA study, today highlights two more examples which reinforces my belief that we need legislation to help lower the high cost of prescription drugs for American consumers. A seventy three billion dollar drug industry merger has the potential to decrease any competition that still exists in the industry. Stock prices for the pharmaceutical industry are at an all time high which adds to their record profits. The losers for all of this are the American consumers who are forced to pay increasingly higher prices for prescription drugs. By joining forces, these two drug companies expect a total cost savings of over one billion dollars over three years by spreading the cost of developing new drugs, while increasing the sales force needed to market old and new products. If this merger deal goes through, I wonder if the drug companies would be willing to pass along any of their one billion dollar savings to the thousands of seniors that I have heard from across South Dakota who cannot afford their monthly medication bills? I ask that a summary of the Families USA study be inserted into the Record following my statement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think that it is the intent of the CBI legislation to undermine our trade with Israel. Preserving our existing trade with Israel will not in any way lessen the trade benefits we extend to the CBI countries. And it is critically important that we consider our existing trade agreement with Israel as we develop further trade measures. I urge my colleagues to address this issue as this bill moves forward, so that we do not prejudice our trade with Israel under the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President. I would like to alert my colleagues to an issue raised by H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, regarding trade with Israel under the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement. Notwithstanding our free-trade agreement with Israel, the CBI provisions of this legislation would unfairly discriminate against U.S. imports from Israel. Under that legislation, most U.S. textile products made with Israeli inputs, such as yarn, fabric or thread, would not be eligible for duty free treatment when assembled into apparel in the Caribbean. To illustrate the contrast with current law, today, if a U.S. company uses Israeli yarn in manufacturing fabric, the products made from such fabric would be eligible for CBI benefits. The trade bill creates a unilateral change from the status quo in our trade with Israel and a major barrier to U.S. companies using Israeli-origin inputs. I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the Economic Minister of the Israeli Embassy that was sent to each of the Members of the Senate Finance Committee urging Congress to treat Israeli inputs on par with U.S. inputs in this trade legislation. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would increase the acreage cap currently in place for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). CRP continues to be a popular alternative for landowners who wish to take a portion of their land out of production for conservation purposes. While the program serves a multitude of beneficial purposes, there are items of the program that we must continue to work on in Congress. As a start, I am introducing companion legislation to Congressman Collin Peterson's (D-MN) bill in the House to increase the acreage allotted in CRP up to 45 million acres. CRP has undergone significant changes as a result of the 1996 Farm Bill. Wildlife benefits provided by certain grass species and conservation practices are now heavily emphasized in the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) which sets forth eligibility into the program. While many of these changes have been welcomed because of the favorable effect they have on conservation and the environment, I have some concerns with certain requirements farmers face in relation to the EBI requirements. First, producers with existing CRP contracts that have tracts of land accepted for re-enrollment into CRP have indicated that in certain cases, they were required to plow under at least half of the existing grass stand on those tracts in order to plant new grass seeds to meet the EBI criteria. Those participants are concerned this may lead to soil erosion instead of soil conservation on tracts that are already highly erodible because plowing up half of grass stand exposes that land to the unpredictable forces of weather. Moreover, it often requires more than one growing season for new grass species to take root and establish adequate cover in order to protect habitat. That said, both producers and conservationists have expressed concern to me that this requirement may place habitat protection in a precarious position in some instances. Finally, the costs of seed varieties called for in the EBI, especially for native grass species, have skyrocketed to a point here it is oftentimes cost-prohibitive for producers to meet the requirements of establishing a new grass stand. These and other matters I plan to address with the input of all interested parties as we proceed with the legislation. However, on the whole CRP remains a very popular program in my home state of South Dakota and across the country. During the twelve signups held between 1986 and 1992, 36.4 million acres were enrolled in CRP. USDA estimates that the average erosion rate on enrolled acres was reduced from 21 to less than 2 tons per acre per year. Retiring these lands also expanded wildlife habitat, enhanced water quality, and restored soil. The annual value of these benefits has been estimated from less than $1 billion to more than $1.5 billion; some estimates of these benefits approach or exceed annual costs, especially in areas of heavy participation. While major changes cannot occur to CRP until we undertake a renewed effort to change the Farm Bill, I am hopeful that Congress reconsider the current Farm Bill in 2000. In addition to supporting CRP, I have co-sponsored S. 1426, the Conservation Security Act of 1999. This bill creates a voluntary incentive program to encourage conservation activities by landowners. This bill includes a variety of solid conservation practices that landowners may choose from in order to qualify for certain incentives. Some of the conservation practices include conservation tillage, runoff control, buffer strips, wetland restoration, and wildlife management. I believe the Conservation Security Act is a strong piece of legislation that would benefit agriculture producers, wildlife, and the environment. I will continue to support and work with Senator Harkin in seeing this legislation move forward.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would increase the acreage cap currently in place for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). CRP continues to be a popular alternative for landowners who wish to take a portion of their land out of production for conservation purposes. While the program serves a multitude of beneficial purposes, there are items of the program that we must continue to work on in Congress. As a start, I am introducing companion legislation to Congressman Collin Peterson's (D-MN) bill in the House to increase the acreage allotted in CRP up to 45 million acres. CRP has undergone significant changes as a result of the 1996 Farm Bill. Wildlife benefits provided by certain grass species and conservation practices are now heavily emphasized in the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) which sets forth eligibility into the program. While many of these changes have been welcomed because of the favorable effect they have on conservation and the environment, I have some concerns with certain requirements farmers face in relation to the EBI requirements. First, producers with existing CRP contracts that have tracts of land accepted for re-enrollment into CRP have indicated that in certain cases, they were required to plow under at least half of the existing grass stand on those tracts in order to plant new grass seeds to meet the EBI criteria. Those participants are concerned this may lead to soil erosion instead of soil conservation on tracts that are already highly erodible because plowing up half of grass stand exposes that land to the unpredictable forces of weather. Moreover, it often requires more than one growing season for new grass species to take root and establish adequate cover in order to protect habitat. That said, both producers and conservationists have expressed concern to me that this requirement may place habitat protection in a precarious position in some instances. Finally, the costs of seed varieties called for in the EBI, especially for native grass species, have skyrocketed to a point here it is oftentimes cost-prohibitive for producers to meet the requirements of establishing a new grass stand. These and other matters I plan to address with the input of all interested parties as we proceed with the legislation. However, on the whole CRP remains a very popular program in my home state of South Dakota and across the country. During the twelve signups held between 1986 and 1992, 36.4 million acres were enrolled in CRP. USDA estimates that the average erosion rate on enrolled acres was reduced from 21 to less than 2 tons per acre per year. Retiring these lands also expanded wildlife habitat, enhanced water quality, and restored soil. The annual value of these benefits has been estimated from less than $1 billion to more than $1.5 billion; some estimates of these benefits approach or exceed annual costs, especially in areas of heavy participation. While major changes cannot occur to CRP until we undertake a renewed effort to change the Farm Bill, I am hopeful that Congress reconsider the current Farm Bill in 2000. In addition to supporting CRP, I have co-sponsored S. 1426, the Conservation Security Act of 1999. This bill creates a voluntary incentive program to encourage conservation activities by landowners. This bill includes a variety of solid conservation practices that landowners may choose from in order to qualify for certain incentives. Some of the conservation practices include conservation tillage, runoff control, buffer strips, wetland restoration, and wildlife management. I believe the Conservation Security Act is a strong piece of legislation that would benefit agriculture producers, wildlife, and the environment. I will continue to support and work with Senator Harkin in seeing this legislation move forward.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation for the hard work of Julie Roling, a Brookings Institution Fellow who has worked as part of my staff for the past six months. Julie has been a tremendous asset to my legislative staff, and I am fortunate to have had her assistance. When she returns to the National Security Agency in December, I know she will be missed by me and my staff. Very often, Brookings Fellows have reputations that precede them in Capitol Hill offices. Known as some of the best and brightest government employees, they are considered secret weapons to the Members they assist. Julie has been no exception. She came to my office with a wealth of government experience and policy knowledge, as well as a model work ethic and positive attitude. While her expertise lies in defense procurement, Julie welcomed projects in a broad array of new issue areas and contributed a great deal to my legislative staff. Throughout the past six months, Julie has worked on a number of projects dealing with the environment, natural resources, agriculture and trade. Julie led research efforts regarding a controversial wetlands policy during her time in my office. The unfortunate circumstances surrounding this issue pitted the interests of agricultural producers against environmental groups. It was imperative that my staff and I have access to the most recent information, in order to effectively address the concerns of my constituents. Julie's research provided my office with up-to-date and unbiased information that enabled me to communicate clearly with both farmers and environmentalists during this time. Julie handled frequent communication with government agencies and almost daily communications with South Dakotans. Julie also provided valuable assistance on crop insurance legislation this year as well. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced numerous bills to reform the crop insurance program in this Congress, an issue of great importance to the farmers of South Dakota. Julie collected and synthesized information that enabled me and my staff to decide which crop insurance reform bills most effectively addressed the concerns of South Dakota farmers. One of the most challenging tasks Julie undertook was the creation of a comprehensive resource guide regarding restructuring of the electricity industry. The end result of Julie's work was a thorough index of restructuring terms, industry positions, key issues and legislative proposals. Anyone who is familiar with the complexity of deregulation proposals can appreciate the hard work and attention to detail required to create such a resource, which will be invaluable to me as the Senate Energy Committee continues to discuss and evaluate restructuring legislation. Again, I wish to express my deep gratitude to Julie for a job well done. I wish her the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to David A. Jungemann, a U.S. Air Force retiree with over 22 years of active military service and a great citizen from South Dakota who recently completed a very successful two-year term as Chairman of The Retired Enlisted Association TREA Senior Citizens League TSCL Board of Trustees. During his chairmanship, TSCL expanded its efforts to defend and protect the earned retirement benefits of older Americans. Through his leadership, TSCL was successful in expanding its legislative lobbying goals and objectives and, as a result, increased the League's membership from 600,000 to over 1.5 million members and supporters in just two years. Dave was born on November 11, 1938 in Wolsey, SD. He graduated from Wolsey High School in May 1956, and in the following month, enlisted in the United States Air Force (USAF) and headed for Parks Air Force Base, California, for Basic Training. During his military career, Dave was stationed in Colorado, Texas, Florida, California, and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. His military career also took him to many overseas locations including Japan, Guam, and Thailand. During a nine-month period of Temporary Duty to Andersen Air Force Base on the island of Guam, he served in support of the ARC Light Missions over the Republic of Vietnam and in 1968, flew 10 combat missions over Vietnam as a Bomb/ Navigation Systems Technician. His service gave him the opportunity to earn the Bronze Star Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, and numerous other awards and decorations. With his military career behind him, Dave worked for the Douglas School System for over 14 years and subsequently retired from service to the State of South Dakota. During this period, he also served a two- year term as City Councilman for the City of Box Elder, South Dakota, and currently serves as Trustee for the Zion Lutheran Church in Rapid City, South Dakota. What is truly remarkable about Dave Jungemann is that in addition to all the accomplishments I just mentioned, he still made time to contribute to the success of TREA and the TREA Senior Citizens League. For instance, he served on the TREA Chapter 29 Board of Directors for 9 years and the TSCL Board of Trustees for 4 years, during which time he completed a two-year term as Chairman. Even today, Dave still participates in numerous parades and ceremonies to honor the veterans of the United States of America. Today I rise in recognition of a great American, a solid citizen of South Dakota and a man who is a symbol of service to God, Country, State, veterans and older Americans. Congratulations on your accomplishments, Dave, and I wish you a Happy Birthday this coming Veterans' Day, a fitting time to celebrate the life of a distinguished American veteran.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support and cosponsorship to S. 1452, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act. Rural America, and my state of South Dakota in particular, is in the midst of an affordable housing crunch. In South Dakota, approximately four of ten new single family homes are manufactured homes, and with an average cost of around $42,000, manufactured homes enable many individuals, young families, and retired South Dakotans to enjoy the benefits of homeownership. Nearly one-quarter of the new homes nationwide are manufactured homes, and an estimated 8% of the American population lives in manufactured homes. Despite the increasing number of manufactured homes, the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act has not been updated since its creation in 1974. Over the past twenty five years, manufactured homes have evolved from being predominately mobile trailers to permanent structures that contain the same amenities found in site-built homes. The inability of regulations to keep pace with changing technology and the nature of manufactured housing frustrates manufactured housing builders and consumers alike. S. 1452 establishes a consensus committee that would submit recommendations to the Secretary of HUD for revising the manufactured housing construction and safety standards. In addition, the bill authorizes the Secretary of HUD to use industry label fees to administer the consensus committee and update the regulations. I applaud this unique provision that costs taxpayers nothing. There is no question that construction codes for manufactured homes are woefully outdated and in need of revision. For example, the manufactured housing industry is running six years behind the most current electrical codes. Changes in the height of ceilings in manufactured homes since 1974 have also outpaced codes regulating the location of smoke detectors in the home. As a result, some smoke detectors in manufactured homes are several feet from the top of vaulted ceilings. Another trend in the industry is for more manufactured homes to be placed on private lots with basements. Unfortunately, out-of-date HUD regulations require water heaters to be placed on the main floor of a manufactured home, thereby prohibiting the more logical placement of water heaters in the basement and near a floor drain. By updating construction safety regulations, this bill will benefit many South Dakotans and others who own manufactured homes. The AARP has raised valid concerns with portions of this legislation that I am hopeful can be addressed. I am confident that the concerns AARP has with the composition of the consensus committee can be worked out to ensure proper representation from consumers, industry experts, manufacturers, public officials, and other interested parties. I also commend AARP for raising the issue of warranties, and as a cosponsor of this legislation, I look forward to working with my colleagues, the manufactured housing industry, and AARP to ensure consumer access to warranties. Another important issue that needs to be addressed in this discussion concerns installation standards that 33 states, including South Dakota, currently have. Differences in geography, soil composition, and climate make a uniform set of installation standards difficult to implement. However, I would like to see consumers in those states that currently do not have installation standards for manufactured homes receive the same level of assurance South Dakotans have that their homes will be installed correctly. I would like to thank Senator Shelby for introducing S. 1452 as well as Senators Allard and Kerry for holding hearings on the legislation in October. I am hopeful that with the help of the interested parties, we can make this important bill even better. I look forward to a continued dialogue on this issue and for the Senate to take up this issue early in the new year.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, when I first came to Congress in 1987, efforts at financial services modernization had already been undertaken and failed many times. Last year, we came as close as Congress has ever come to achieving this critical goal. This year, as a member of the conference committee, I am pleased to say, we will finally accomplish this historic goal. That we are here is a testament to the leadership of many, many participants. Much credit goes to Chairman Leach, who tirelessly shepared this bill over his five years as chairman of the House Banking Committee and chairman of this conference. Senator Gramm, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee relentlessly promoted his agenda, yet was willing to compromise on critical issues in a manner that resulted ultimately in bipartisan support of this bill. My ranking member on the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, made invaluable contributions to the process. His tenaciousness, in depth understanding of the many highly complex issues, and ability to work within the caucus made this success possible. Of course, the ranking member on the House Banking Committee, Representative LaFalce, and our friends from the House Commerce Committee, Chairman Bliley and Representative Dingell, made critical contributions to this process as well. Finally, I would note the active involvement of two Secretaries of the Treasury, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. Bob has moved on to other things, but the role he forged in this process has been seamlessly filled by Secretary Summers. There are many highlights to this bill. By eliminating the Glass- Steagall restrictions, we free our financial services industry to maintain its place as the world leader. The benefits of one-stop shopping will make financial services more accessible to all Americans. These reasons alone are sufficient to support this legislation. There are several other provisions to this bill that merit discussion, and they strengthen this legislation. First, the unitary thrift loophole is closed. I am pleased to have offered this critical amendment which closes the loophole that permits a dangerous combination of banking and commerce. While we tear down firewalls within financial services, we strengthen them around financial services. Under current law, commercial firms can own and operate unitary thrifts. That is the only breach of the banking and commerce firewalls currently allowed under our financial services law. Of course, the Glass-Steagall repeal and other components of this legislation will open a range of financial activities to each other. However, the bill is carefully structured to prevent the mixing of banking and commerce. This single loophole remains where banking and commerce can mix. The conference report does not interfere with current ownership of thrifts. Any commercial firms that currently own a unitary thrift charter will be able to continue to own and operate their institutions without restriction. Their current status would be undisturbed. The only limitation this amendment would impose involves the transferability of that charter. The charter would not be transferable to another commercial entity. Any bank, insurance company or security firm that wanted to acquire the charter could do so. A new entity could be created to operate the thrift. Included in title IV of the bill before us are provisions prohibiting new unitary thrift holding company applications filed after May 4, 1999, and prohibiting transfer of existing unitaries to commercial firms. In the context of comprehensive financial modernization legislation, these provisions achieve the intent of this Congress to block the inappropriate mixing of banking and commerce, even in the limited scope authorized for the thrift industry for the past several decades. The provisions in title IV protect granfathered companies but do not allow existing unitary companies to be acquired by commercial firms. By adopting my amendment in this conference report, it is the intent of Congress that the thrift regulator strictly enforce this provision and related laws which carefully define which companies qualify as unitary holding companies and which companies are grandfathered in this legislation. Only the current, limited universe of legitimate unitaries should be allowed to exercise powers granted them in the Home Owners Loan Act, and transfer of unitaries to commercial firms will no longer threaten American taxpayers. This provision will further the goals of financial modernization by leveling the playing field between banks and thrifts. It will also remove a dangerous threat to further weakening of the walls between banking and commerce. This bipartisan effort had the support of Secretary Summers and Chairman Greenspan. It overwhelmingly passed the full Senate. Representative Largent shepherded it through the House Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Material. Our joint efforts helped make this protection part of the conference report. We also improve the Federal Home Loan Bank System, creating greater access to wholesale capital markets for small banks and their customers. The improvements to the Home Loan Bank System will directly help South Dakota financial institutions and South Dakota consumers by making it easier for our institutions to join the Federal Home Loan Bank System. This portion of the bill recognizes the importance of small community banks and the role they plan in our towns and communities. With the massive shift of savings and investment to Wall Street and other nontraditional vehicles, small community banks are finding it more difficult to attract deposits at reasonable rates, and lack ready access to wholesale capital markets. This bill will give them that access by making it easier for small banks to join the Federal Home Loan Bank System. That system gives small banks greater access to cheaper funds through wholesale capital rates. That access, in turn, will lead to more loans at lower rates to our small businesses, ranchers and farmers. It makes running a farm or ranch, running a business, expanding a business, buying a car, sending children to college--all of these endeavors more affordable for all South Dakotans, for all Americans. By enabling more affordable loans, this provision will help infuse the rural economy with capital in particular. This section of financial services modernization legislation is critical to keeping our community banks competitive as we move to tear down traditional firewalls and create new financial services giants within the realm of the financial service industries. I want to briefly address the issue of financial privacy. With the explosive growth of the Internet, we are finding information can be accumulated and acquired with greater ease than previously imaginable. We must address this important consumer protection issue of financial privacy. I joined my colleagues, Senators Bryan and Shelby, in supporting an ``opt-out'' provision that would allow customers to prohibit their financial institutions from sharing their personal information. That effort failed and I am disappointed. We do add some new standards, including mandated disclosure of privacy policies and protection of certain critical information in the bill. I believe we can do better. I am pleased that we allow states to enact tougher privacy laws, establishing a minimum federal standard of financial privacy, but we can do better. Despite my disappointment, I am pleased we took the first steps in addressing financial privacy, and I believe Congress will revisit the privacy issue in the future. It is critical as we move toward repeal of depression-era limitations that we recognize the vital role of community banks in rural areas. This legislation successfully frees our dominant providers to compete globally while strengthening the role of our community banks directly responsive to our small towns. It is that successful balancing that prompted me to sign the conference report, and I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this historic legislation. I also want to take this opportunity to thank my staff, Paul Nash, for his tireless work on this legislation. His dedication to this effort helped make the final product the balanced result which we will pass today. I yield back such time as may remain.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent fellows on my staff, Julie Roling and Erin Barry, be allowed the privilege of the floor during the remainder of this week.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes or as much time as I may consume.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I rise to honor the memory of a departed friend and trusted advisor, Harry VandeMore of Canton, South Dakota; a lifelong advocate for veterans and the citizens of Lincoln County, South Dakota. Harry's dedication to community began with his own service in the Seventh Infantry Division of the United States Army. He served meritoriously on the frontlines of the Korean War, earning the Combat Infantryman Badge for Excellent Performance. Unfortunately, on October 14, 1952, he received serious combat injuries to the face, left arm, and left leg. For two years, he underwent thirty surgeries at Denver's Fitzsimmons Army Hospital to mend his injuries. As a result of his injuries, he was awarded the Purple Heart. After being discharged, he returned to Hudson, South Dakota, where he married Rose Ann McNamara, his wife of forty-four years, and farmed the lands of Hudson with his parents and brothers. Community was second only to his family. Harry always brought his family to events he attended. Many people who worked with Harry knew his children just as well. Harry dedicated his life to veterans ``because he went through it,'' according to Rose, his wife. His first service was to help the returning Vietnam War veterans who were facing mass rejection. Harry was honored by his peers when he was elected to the Disabled American Veterans National Executive Committee for the Fourteenth District, gaining wide respect serving a four-state region. His dedication was also present with his eighteen years on the state D.A.V. Executive Committee where he served as state commander; with his years as American Legion Post Commander in Hudson; and as president of the South Dakota Veteran's Council. Many have dedicated their life only to this very important cause, but Harry also served the whole community with seven years as chairman of the Hudson School Board and his years on the Lincoln County Planning and Zoning Commission. It was on the commission where he helped make roads safer for fellow farmers because they were farm-to-market roads. Harry was always a valuable citizen-counsel to me. He always helped to keep me abreast of veterans' hardships during my days as a state legislator, then as a member of the House, and now, during my service in the U.S. Senate. I will forever miss his perspective on the uniquely tragic situation many of America's servicemen and women are in today. His life is a model to all South Dakotans and all Americans. Harry VandeMore will be missed. He served by dedicating his life to his community and comrades, leading by example. As a soldier, a farmer, a husband and father, and as a public servant, he served not only the veterans, who are too often passed over, but the entire community, so others would not have to go through hardship.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I offer my strong support for the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report and am pleased to join my Senate colleagues in passing this important piece of legislation today. Rural America, and my state of South Dakota, is in the midst of an affordable housing shortage crisis. According to reports, 5.3 million Americans pay more then 50 percent in their annual income to rent or living in substandard conditions. This is unacceptable for a society as wealthy as ours, and we must make real progress now to improve housing conditions for all Americans. Although I supported the VA-HUD Appropriations Bill on the Senate floor last month, I was disappointed that the bill failed to provide additional Section 8 rental assistance for the thousands of American families that desperately need it. Additional Section 8 rental assistance, like that proposed by the President, would have allowed 321 families in South Dakota to receive Section 8 vouchers to help them afford adequate housing. In addition, I objected to the elimination of the Community Builders program in the original bill. In South Dakota, Community Builders have worked with local governments and housing authorities to provide needed rental assistance statewide. I joined my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Banking and Housing Committee in writing to Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski, asking them to fund additional Section 8 vouchers and restore the Community Builders program during their negotiations with conferees from the House of Representatives. I am pleased that Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski were able to secure funding for an additional 60,000 Section 8 vouchers. The VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report also reiterates the need for Community Builders in HUD to help bring important HUD programs to an increasing number of Americans. This legislation will help address the affordable housing shortage in my state of South Dakota. Currently, South Dakota families in need of housing assistance spend an average of 9 months on a waiting list for current Section 8 vouchers. While not helping all of those in need, the additional Section 8 vouchers contained in the VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report will begin to shorten the time it takes for low- income families to receive much needed assistance. Community Builders will also be able to continue to work with South Dakota communities to increase access for affordable housing. In the past, Community Builders worked with the Northeastern Council of Governments in South Dakota to spread information to several northeastern counties on the services that HUD provides, and how to access these services. Community Builders have facilitated FHA loans for the construction of affordable homes in Rapid City, while also helping the Sioux Empire Housing Partnership become a HUD-approved housing counseling agency. The Community Builder program has begun to address the housing needs in historically underserved communities, including the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Community Builders have enabled tribal leaders to better utilize HUD's programs to the benefit of one of the most poor populations in the nation. I would like to thank Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski for improving the VA-HUD Appropriations bill despite the strict budget constraints the committee faced. I believe it is a wise investment in our country's future when we ensure that our working families have adequate housing, and I look forward to continue working with my colleagues to find ways to help South Dakota families and families across the nation address their housing needs.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr President, I rise before you today to introduce legislation on behalf of Senators Bob Kerrey, Charles Grassley, Craig Thomas, and myself. The RANCHER Act (Rural America Needs Competition to Help Every Rancher) is designed to reestablish a free, fair, and competitive market for independent livestock producers. South Dakota family farmers and ranchers indicate to me that one of the most critical problems in agriculture today is the growing, unabated trend of agribusiness consolidation and concentration. Too often today, elected leaders overlook agricultural concentration with rhetoric and empty promises. But talk doesn't provide any assurance to a cow-calf producer in South Dakota worried about what he or she will sell feeder calves for this fall. Talk doesn't minimize the worries of a diversified farmer looking for competitive markets in which to sell his or her grain. And talk surely doesn't assure any feeder of livestock that he or she will have a fair opportunity to sell slaughter livestock in this concentrated market. This bipartisan legislation would strengthen and amend Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by prohibiting meatpackers from owning livestock prior to purchase for slaughter. It does provide exceptions for farmers and ranchers who own and process livestock in a producer owned and controlled cooperative. Mr. President, concern over meatpacker concentration is not new in the United States. Cartoons in the 1880s negatively depicted companies that pooled livestock together for sale as ``beef trusts'' engaging in monopolistic pricing behavior. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate meatpackers to determine if they were leveraging too much power over the marketplace. The FTC released a report in 1919 stating that the ``Big 5'' meatpackers (Armour, Swift, Morris, Wilson, and Cudahy) dominated with ``monopolistic control of the American meat industry''. The FTC also found these meatpackers owned stockyards, rail car lines, cold storage plants, and other essential facilities for distributing food. This led to the Packers Consent Decree of 1920 which prohibited the Big 5 packers from engaging in retail sales of meat and forced them to divest of ownership interests in stockyards and rail lines. Then, Congress enacted the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 that--among other things--prohibited meatpackers from engaging in unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive pricing practices. Unfortunately, we have allowed some in the meatpacking industry to once again dangerously choke free enterprise and market access. As in the past, producers again look to their elected leaders to take action. That is why I have introduced legislation in Congress to combat meatpacker concentration in livestock markets. My legislation will prohibit meatpackers from owning livestock for slaughter. Within the last few weeks, we've heard from pork conglomerates Smithfield Foods, Murphy Farms, and Tyson Foods regarding Smithfield's intention to own all the hogs currently held by both Murphy and Tyson. If these deals are to go through, around 800,000 sows could be owned and controlled by Smithfield. Ask any pork producer, a breeding stock herd of this size could enable Smithfield to totally dominate the hog industry. In response, we could seek a Department of Justice investigation of this deal, but it is clear to me that current anti-trust law may be simply too weak to stop a marriage of this nature. Some may believe we need trust busters with true grit in the Justice or Agriculture Departments to keep these deals from happening, but my experience in Congress tells me if we wait for this type of action, we won't have an independent farmer or rancher left--anywhere. Mr. President, current anti-trust laws have failed to address concerns of livestock producers in the marketplace. Moreover, growing packer concentration creates an imbalance in bargaining power between a few meatpackers who buy livestock and several producers who sell livestock. The relative lack of buyers means the buying side of the market has much more power than the selling side. Envision an hourglass: it is wide at both ends and very narrow in the middle. The two wide ends aptly represent agricultural producers and consumers. The narrow middle of the hourglass is the number of processors and meatpackers that buy livestock from farmers and ranchers and then sell food to consumers. A decision on the part of one meatpacker may have a substantial effect on the marketplace. For instance, when Smithfield shut down the pork plant in Huron--formerly owned by American Foods Group--pork producers in South Dakota were left with merely a single market for their slaughter hogs in the state. Alternatively, a decision on the part of a livestock producer seller has little if any effect at all on price. What does this mean? It means the marketplace is not competitive. Some so called experts'' in the industry claim that concentration leads to cheap prices for consumers. These experts believe concentration is simply unstoppable, and better yet, they point to the vertically integrated poultry industry as a successful guide or model for cattle and pork producers. They gloss over the real effects of concentration by touting economies of scale and productive efficiency. Apologists for the corporate conglomerates can criticize my efforts to keep meatpackers from owning livestock if they want, but given a choice, I will side with a broad base of family farmers and ranchers over conglomerate agriculture any day. It boils down to whether we want independent producers in agriculture, or if we will yield to concentration and see farmers and ranchers become low wage employees on their own land. Ultimately, if we continue to stand idle and watch control of the world's food supply fall into the hands of the few, consumers will be the real losers in terms of both retail cost and food safety. So today, almost a century after President Teddy Roosevelt used a big stick to give livestock producers a square deal, we again face a choice between corporate takeover of agriculture and a fight for free enterprise. I proudly cast my lot with the free enterprise family farm and ranch agriculture that has served our country so well.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr President, I rise before you today to introduce legislation on behalf of Senators Bob Kerrey, Charles Grassley, Craig Thomas, and myself. The RANCHER Act (Rural America Needs Competition to Help Every Rancher) is designed to reestablish a free, fair, and competitive market for independent livestock producers. South Dakota family farmers and ranchers indicate to me that one of the most critical problems in agriculture today is the growing, unabated trend of agribusiness consolidation and concentration. Too often today, elected leaders overlook agricultural concentration with rhetoric and empty promises. But talk doesn't provide any assurance to a cow-calf producer in South Dakota worried about what he or she will sell feeder calves for this fall. Talk doesn't minimize the worries of a diversified farmer looking for competitive markets in which to sell his or her grain. And talk surely doesn't assure any feeder of livestock that he or she will have a fair opportunity to sell slaughter livestock in this concentrated market. This bipartisan legislation would strengthen and amend Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by prohibiting meatpackers from owning livestock prior to purchase for slaughter. It does provide exceptions for farmers and ranchers who own and process livestock in a producer owned and controlled cooperative. Mr. President, concern over meatpacker concentration is not new in the United States. Cartoons in the 1880s negatively depicted companies that pooled livestock together for sale as ``beef trusts'' engaging in monopolistic pricing behavior. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate meatpackers to determine if they were leveraging too much power over the marketplace. The FTC released a report in 1919 stating that the ``Big 5'' meatpackers (Armour, Swift, Morris, Wilson, and Cudahy) dominated with ``monopolistic control of the American meat industry''. The FTC also found these meatpackers owned stockyards, rail car lines, cold storage plants, and other essential facilities for distributing food. This led to the Packers Consent Decree of 1920 which prohibited the Big 5 packers from engaging in retail sales of meat and forced them to divest of ownership interests in stockyards and rail lines. Then, Congress enacted the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 that--among other things--prohibited meatpackers from engaging in unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive pricing practices. Unfortunately, we have allowed some in the meatpacking industry to once again dangerously choke free enterprise and market access. As in the past, producers again look to their elected leaders to take action. That is why I have introduced legislation in Congress to combat meatpacker concentration in livestock markets. My legislation will prohibit meatpackers from owning livestock for slaughter. Within the last few weeks, we've heard from pork conglomerates Smithfield Foods, Murphy Farms, and Tyson Foods regarding Smithfield's intention to own all the hogs currently held by both Murphy and Tyson. If these deals are to go through, around 800,000 sows could be owned and controlled by Smithfield. Ask any pork producer, a breeding stock herd of this size could enable Smithfield to totally dominate the hog industry. In response, we could seek a Department of Justice investigation of this deal, but it is clear to me that current anti-trust law may be simply too weak to stop a marriage of this nature. Some may believe we need trust busters with true grit in the Justice or Agriculture Departments to keep these deals from happening, but my experience in Congress tells me if we wait for this type of action, we won't have an independent farmer or rancher left--anywhere. Mr. President, current anti-trust laws have failed to address concerns of livestock producers in the marketplace. Moreover, growing packer concentration creates an imbalance in bargaining power between a few meatpackers who buy livestock and several producers who sell livestock. The relative lack of buyers means the buying side of the market has much more power than the selling side. Envision an hourglass: it is wide at both ends and very narrow in the middle. The two wide ends aptly represent agricultural producers and consumers. The narrow middle of the hourglass is the number of processors and meatpackers that buy livestock from farmers and ranchers and then sell food to consumers. A decision on the part of one meatpacker may have a substantial effect on the marketplace. For instance, when Smithfield shut down the pork plant in Huron--formerly owned by American Foods Group--pork producers in South Dakota were left with merely a single market for their slaughter hogs in the state. Alternatively, a decision on the part of a livestock producer seller has little if any effect at all on price. What does this mean? It means the marketplace is not competitive. Some so called experts'' in the industry claim that concentration leads to cheap prices for consumers. These experts believe concentration is simply unstoppable, and better yet, they point to the vertically integrated poultry industry as a successful guide or model for cattle and pork producers. They gloss over the real effects of concentration by touting economies of scale and productive efficiency. Apologists for the corporate conglomerates can criticize my efforts to keep meatpackers from owning livestock if they want, but given a choice, I will side with a broad base of family farmers and ranchers over conglomerate agriculture any day. It boils down to whether we want independent producers in agriculture, or if we will yield to concentration and see farmers and ranchers become low wage employees on their own land. Ultimately, if we continue to stand idle and watch control of the world's food supply fall into the hands of the few, consumers will be the real losers in terms of both retail cost and food safety. So today, almost a century after President Teddy Roosevelt used a big stick to give livestock producers a square deal, we again face a choice between corporate takeover of agriculture and a fight for free enterprise. I proudly cast my lot with the free enterprise family farm and ranch agriculture that has served our country so well.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, agriculture across most of America is in a state of crisis. We are facing incredibly low livestock and grain prices, coupled with weather disasters in many parts of the country, all simultaneously. The legislation before us, as my colleague has noted so ably, is imperfect. Some have referred to it as throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning person, and there is some truth to that. But it is urgent legislation. It is legislation we need to move forward because the need is immense and the urgency is critical. There is certainly no assurance, if we were to vote this particular bill down, that it would be back to us anytime soon or that it would come back to us in a better situation than it is now. I think we need to recognize the inadequacies of the legislation, but at the same time that we move forward, we do so with a commitment to do better, still this Congress and in the coming year, to address the underlying problems that at least contributed to the crisis we have in rural America. Faulty agricultural policy brought to us by Freedom to Farm, combined with low prices, natural disasters, and weak export markets, resulted in an inadequate safety net--for family producers, in any event--across this country. We have seen net farm income absolutely plummet from $53 billion in 1996 to $43.8 billion in 1999. Off-farm income in many of our States, including mine, South Dakota, is responsible for 80 to 90 percent of our family producers being able to stay on the farm. If it were not for off-farm income, there would be an even more massive exodus off the farm and ranch than we are seeing. Are there inadequacies in the bill? Certainly. I commend our colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, Senator Kohl, and many others, for hard work on this legislation under circumstances that surely were trying, where the level of resources would certainly not permit what they would prefer to see happen. Nonetheless, I think we have to acknowledge we need a recommitment in this body and from our friends on the other side of the Capitol to address the underlying structural problems ag faces today. I believe that involves revisiting the Freedom to Farm legislation. I believe that involves strengthening our marketing loan capabilities. I would like to see us pass my country-of-origin meat labeling legislation. I am still working with a bipartisan group of colleagues this week to put together legislation addressing vertical integration in the packing industry, so we do not turn our livestock producers into low-wage employees on their own land. I fear that is the road we are going down. We have to address issues of trade, value-added agriculture, farmer- owned cooperatives, and crop insurance reform. All of these are issues that cry out for attention, above and beyond anything done in this legislation. I do applaud the effort in this bill to include mandatory price reporting on the livestock side. I do applaud some modest funding, at least, for my school breakfast pilot project that is included in this bill. I am concerned, however, the process led us to legislation that involves a distribution process that may not be as equitable as what I think the American public deserves. I will quote briefly from an analysis by the Associated Press, Philip Brasher, where he observes: Some of the largest, most profitable farms in the country would be among the biggest beneficiaries of Congress' $8.7 billion agricultural assistance package because it loosens rules that wee intended to target government payments to family-size operations. An individual farm could claim up to $460,000 in subsidies a year--double the current restriction--and the legislation creates a new way for producers to get around even that limit. The payment limits apply to two different programs: crop subsidies that vary according to fluctuations in commodity prices; and annual ``market transition'' payments, which were guaranteed to producers under the 1996 farm law. Farmers are technically allowed to receive no more than $75,000 in crop subsidies and $40,000 a year in market transition payments under current law. But many farms, legally claim twice that much because they are divided into different entities. A husband and a wife, for example, can claim separate payments on the same farm. The aid package would double those caps, so farms could get up to $300,000 in crop subsidies and $160,000 in market transition payments this year. Last year, about 550 farmers nationwide claimed the maximum amount in crop subsidies, USDA officials said. Critics of the looser payment rules fear they will encourage the consolidation of farms and hasten the demise of smaller-scale operations. ``Big farms will use the extra cash to buy up land from the neighbors, driving up land prices in the process,'' said Chuck Hassebrook, program director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, NE. ``What is the purpose of these farm programs? Is it to help very wealthy, very large landowners get bigger and get richer?'' These are the kinds of questions and concerns many of us have. I think they are profound questions, having to do with the very nature of agriculture, the very nature of rural America. What road we are going down, in terms of ag and rural policy in America, policy responsible for feeding so efficiently and so effectively and in such an extraordinary manner the people of our Nation? But for all its failings and shortcomings, many of which I briefly raised this morning, the fact is there is absolute urgency this legislation go forward, that we address the problems of income collapse, disaster all over America, with this legislation; and, hopefully, upon passage of this legislation, we recommit ourselves to going expeditiously forward to address the remainder of these other issues I have raised, and others of my colleagues have raised, reflecting upon the inadequacies and inefficiencies and the shortcomings of this legislation. They are many. But to stop this legislation now would only hasten the demise of still more family producers all across America. It would not guarantee a return to a better policy anytime very soon. We need to pass this bill, then go forward with additional legislation to redress these inadequacies. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on passage of this legislation and to work with us in a bipartisan fashion on the remainder of these agricultural issues and budget issues before the country. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the United States Senate has the opportunity to take another important step in ridding the world of the threat of nuclear war by ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It was three years ago when the United States joined nations from around the world in signing a treaty banning nuclear explosives testing. It is up to the Senate to ratify this treaty and re-establish the United States as the world leader in efforts to stop nuclear proliferation. Over forty years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower began an effort to end nuclear testing. During this time, the United States and five other nations conducted 2,046 nuclear test explosions--or an average of one nuclear test every nine days. The United States has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992 when Congress and President Bush agreed to a moratorium on nuclear testing. Countries who sign the CTBT agree to stop all above-ground and under- ground nuclear testing. The treaty also sets up an extensive system of monitors and on-site inspections to help ensure that countries adhere to the treaty. Finally, the treaty includes six ``safeguards'' proposed by the President; the most important of which, allows the United States to remove itself from the conditions of the treaty at any point the Congress and the President determine it would be in the Nation's interest to resume nuclear testing. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, four former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, numerous former military leaders, and an equal number of acclaimed nuclear scientists and nobel laureates support ratification of the CTBT. My support for the CTBT comes with an understanding of the limitations associated with stopping countries and rogue nations from developing, testing, and deploying nuclear weapons. Opponents of the CTBT claim that it is not a perfect document and therefore threatens the security of our Nation. While I agree that the CTBT is not the definitive answer in stopping nuclear proliferation, I contend that it is an important step in the ongoing process to prevent nuclear war in the future. The CTBT will not threaten our national security. Most importantly, the treaty bans the ``bang'', not the ``bomb.'' The United States already possesses the largest and most advanced nuclear weapons stockpile in the world. I agree that maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent is in our country's national security interest. Data collected from over 40 years of nuclear testing, coupled with advanced scientific computing will ensure the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapons without testing. As I mentioned before, the United States can also withdraw from the CTBT at any time to conduct whatever testing our country feels is necessary. In fact, the CTBT will enhance our national security. The CTBT will limit the ability of other countries to acquire nuclear capabilities, and it will severely constrain the programs of countries that currently have nuclear weapons. With or without the CTBT, the United States has a critical national security requirement to monitor global testing activities. Verification requirements built into the CTBT will provide our country with access to additional monitoring stations we would not otherwise have. For example, the CTBT requires the installation of over 30 monitoring stations in Russia, 11 in China, and 17 in the Middle East. These are in addition to the on-site inspections of nuclear facilities that are also allowed under the treaty. Additional monitoring stations and on-site inspections are only effective if the countries we are most concerned with actually ratify the treaty. Granted, there is no guarantee that the United States' ratification of the CTBT will automatically mean that India, Pakistan, China, and Russia will follow suit. However, it is an even greater chance that these countries will be less inclined to ratify the treaty if our country does not take the lead. For those who doubt the likelihood of other countries ratifying the CTBT, I point to the example of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). It can not be refuted that the United States ratification of the CWC facilitated ratification by Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran. Ratification by the United States is required to bring the CTBT into force, and ratification by the United States will strengthen our diplomatic efforts to influence other states to sign and ratify the treaty. The CTBT will not rid the world of nuclear weapons and it may not even prevent all nations from conducting some kind of nuclear tests. However, the CTBT provides the best tool available for the United States to continue its efforts to combat nuclear proliferation without jeopardizing our own national security. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this important treaty and restoring America's leadership on this issue.