Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the amendment that is being offered is with the cooperation of Chairman Domenici. It is cosponsored by Senators Daschle, Dorgan, Bingaman, Wellstone, McCain, Kohl, Conrad and Murray, and it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which is designed to reflect on the crisis that we have with Indian school funding in the United States today. This is an issue that Chairman Domenici has shared with me as a matter of great concern on the Senate Budget Committee. We recognize the budget resolution assumes $166 million will be allocated for Indian school repair work and replacement work. However, we recognize this is part of the budget resolution and is not binding on the Appropriations Committee. There is a need to raise the visibility of the very real crisis that exists in terms of BIA school funding and replacement needs. That is the purpose of this sense of the Senate. The BIA manages some 143 schools within the United States. It is a Federal responsibility. This is not a question of whether the Federal Government ought to be involved in these schools or not. In this instance, these schools are Federal property and it is a Federal responsibility. We have a repair and replacement backlog now of about $754 million. The rate at which we have been replacing some 60 schools that currently are in need of replacement has been at about one per year. So obviously the backlog is getting larger and larger as we go about this kind of underfunded replacement and renovation. Mr. President, 40 percent of the BIA students attending class are attending class in portable classrooms. We have a fast-growing population attending these schools, and it is clear that something far different from what we have been doing in the past is absolutely essential if, in fact, we are going to meaningfully address this backlog. It is our concern that we have to infuse more resources into the backlog problem, and that we have greater direction from the White House itself, from the BIA itself, relative to a concrete plan to get this done over a relatively modest timeframe, over the next 5 years. So this resolution calls on the administration to work with us in arriving at a plan that is infused with sufficient funds to make significant progress over these coming years on this backlog. This resolution will send a signal, and I think an important signal, to the appropriators and to the administration that this is a crisis that we recognize and we acknowledge, and for which there is a bipartisan concern. So that is the thrust of this resolution. I commend Chairman Domenici for working with me, and for the work of his staff, working with my staff, trying to arrive at a strategy that is constructive and is meaningful on this problem. The Senator represents a State with a significant Indian population, suffering many of the same problems that the Native American population in my State of South Dakota suffer. So this is a problem about which we jointly share a great concern. The chairman is commended for a longstanding commitment to trying to enhance opportunities and the quality of life for the Native American population of his State and around the United States in general. This is one area where we both agree; I believe that higher visibility and a higher level of commitment is badly needed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a modified version of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON. We do not have Senator Campbell on it. Senator Campbell held a hearing and a mark-up today at his committee, and we have not been able to reach him on this amendment as yet.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is a good idea.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the chairman for his supportive remarks here. The chairman has a great understanding, profound understanding, of the immensity of the problem that this country faces relative to Indian schools and the need for White House leadership on this issue. We will work with the White House in that regard, but it is going to require a cooperative effort if we are going to have any success on a problem of this immensity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kohl, Conrad, Inouye, and Murray be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield back my time.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator Bingaman was also named. We are very proud to have both Senators from New Mexico on this amendment as cosponsors.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, we have before the Senate today, and will have on into next week, the budget resolution which has been reported from Senate Budget Committee, on which I serve. I commend ranking member Lautenberg from New Jersey for his leadership as well as Chairman Domenici for his work on the budget resolution. Obviously, we have differences relative to some components of the budget resolution. I think the current resolution is significantly lacking in many serious ways. At the same time, however, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstance that we now find ourselves in as Americans here in the spring of 1998. Many of us recognize that, upon his election 5 years ago, President Clinton faced a pool of red ink totaling around $292 billion per year, a pool of red ink that had exploded through the 1980s. When President Carter left office, this nation had accumulated a national debt of around $1 trillion. At the end of the 1980s, the accumulated debt of this country was four times that, in the $4 trillion range, and growing beyond sight. After five successive years in reducing the annual budget deficit, we now find ourselves, in this fiscal year, with a budget surplus as measured under the unified budget-scoring system. We are in the black for the first time in 30 years. The last time the Federal Government had a unified budget surplus was in 1969 during the Lyndon Johnson administration when taxes were raised in order to pay for the Vietnam war. We slipped back into deficit again and then drowned in red ink through the 1980s. So, we find ourselves in an extraordinary time. We must decide what kind of framework our Federal Government should have, and what kind of framework our budget should have, going on into the next millennium. After 5 years of budget discipline--in no small measure as a consequence of a very difficult vote on the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, which laid much of the groundwork for this progress--we find ourselves with record low inflation, record low unemployment, one of the highest levels of housing ownership that we have seen in decades, record low levels of crime and, again, the first budget surplus, at least under a unified budget, that we have seen in 30 years. Where do we go from here? That is the question that the pending budget resolution asks. This is not just a budget issue. This is one that really reflects the values and the priorities and the philosophy of the American people. It has enormous ramifications for us all. There are some very fundamental areas where the two political parties are in agreement on the budget resolution. I am thankful for that. I am pleased we have found common ground, first of all, in deciding that the budget resolution should sustain and continue the budget discipline mechanism that has been a factor in producing a budget surplus for the first time in 30 years. We will continue on a pay-as-you-go basis. No more new spending unless the cost is offset by spending decreases or revenue adjustments; no more tax cuts, even in an election year, unless those cuts are paid for by reduced spending or revenue increases somewhere else in the budget. This is the kind of discipline that one would have thought should have been present in our Government for 200 years but, in fact, has been present for just this past decade. It is the kind of discipline that we must sustain. While there are some who, I think, are expressing some sense of giddiness over a budget surplus, we need to recognize that that surplus will remain only with continued budget restraint and discipline; that we must face the question of budget priorities; and that the election year Christmas trees that took place in the past are no longer an accepted part of budget strategy in this day and age. Secondly, there is agreement between the parties, at least in the Senate Budget Committee, that the so-called budget surpluses ought to be preserved for the purpose of strengthening Social Security. We ought not to run off in any number of directions with tax cuts or spending increases premised on utilizing those particular dollars. These so-called surpluses are really surpluses only if the Social Security trust funds are included in the budget, which is the nature of the unified budget. We have an agreement on the budget resolution that has emerged from our committee that those two underlying principles will be continued. I acknowledge the very great importance of those two underlying principles. There are some great differences, however, that I am hopeful can be addressed with amendments during the course of debate this coming week. One of the most fundamental differences, frankly, is how to utilize any resources that might be generated by a tobacco settlement. We all understand that a tobacco settlement is still only a possibility--it may occur or it may not--and the terms of any tobacco settlement ought to be driven by the merits of that issue itself. We should not see the settlement as simply a revenue generator for other purposes, regardless of how worthy they might be. Nonetheless, the President in his budget and Democrats in their alternative budget recognize that we do need to be thinking about how to utilize most constructively additional resources if they are, in fact, made possible by a tobacco settlement. Therein lies one of the most fundamental differences between the two parties. We are in agreement on preserving the Social Security trust funds; we are in agreement that we need to shore up Medicare. I think few people have done more to protect, preserve and strengthen Medicare than my colleagues on the Democratic side. We are pleased, however, to have support from our Republican colleagues on an issue that ought not to be partisan and one where we should be able to find common ground. The budget resolution that is coming to this floor, over the objections of the White House and over the objections of Democrats on the Budget Committee, sees to it that none of the potential new resources from a settlement will be used for health care for children; for schools; for child care; for expanding the National Institutes of Health research on cancer, heart disease, and so on; for rural development, or for deterring youth smoking. That is not to say that there are not attempts in other areas of the budget to touch on some of these issues, but certainly none of the tobacco funds could be used for these purposes. I have to say, simply being candid and looking across the political landscape in the Budget Committee, that what we have here is not so much a concern about the long-term viability of Medicare--we all share a concern for that. It seems to me that those who are making certain that none of the tobacco money may be used for many of the other problems created by use of tobacco, or for child care or education, are less concerned about Medicare, than they are simply opposed to creating a better partnership among the Federal, State, and local governments, and public and private entities, to address the problems of education and child care and health care in general. Mr. President, we have some enormous needs that the Federal Government cannot fix by itself, nor should it attempt to fix by itself, but where a constructive partnership makes a lot of common sense. We have found over the last several budget debates that the American people are not terribly ideological in the sense that they are far right or they are far left, they tend to be fairly pragmatic and down the center. That is why Democrats on the Budget Committee attempted to pass an alternative budget. In doing so, we recognized that replacing and renovating schools has always been and will always be primarily a function of local school districts and local citizens, taking it upon themselves to determine whether a particular school needs to be replaced or renovated. Those are local decisions and will remain so. But we have suggested that a small portion of these resources ought to be used to help buy down interest rates for the bond issues that are supported at the local level. Because of the enormous backlog of school repair and renovation work that is out there--it is in small towns, it is in large cities, suburban areas, rural and urban alike. As we head into this next millennium, we understand that those countries which focus on quality education and developing the brain power of the next generation are nations that will do well; those nations that neglect those resources, those nations that think these needs will somehow take care of themselves will slide backwards. We need a new commitment to education and to providing the resources for education, not simply for the intrinsic value of increasing the intellectual capability of our young people--although that certainly is the principal goal--but also from even a purely dollars-and-cents point of view. Our economy cannot thrive, our communities cannot prosper, unless we do better at making sure that every young person in this country has an opportunity to develop his or her God-given talents to the maximum extent possible, and that the resources are there to make it happen. We must have a public and private, a Federal, State, and local partnership that can make it happen. So it is with some frustration that I view this budget resolution, in its current form, as a wasted opportunity. I am hopeful that we can restore some of these priorities in the context of a balanced budget in a way that does, in fact, make some of these key investments in other areas as well. In the area of child care, we have an increasingly stark reality of more and more children being unsupervised, not having constructive after-school programs, that they are getting along on a latchkey basis. More and more often we have single-parent households. We also have more dual-income households, not necessarily because they want that to be their circumstance but because economic reality dictates that circumstance. Yet, at the age when children have the greatest brain development, when it is determined how well these children will succeed in their later years in terms of their fitting into society and being constructive citizens, that is the one age where we make the least commitment, where we have the greatest patchwork system, where quality is uneven, where affordability is uneven. I have held child care meetings all around my State with parents and child care providers and other concerned citizens. I am pleased that the Republican Governor of my State is very supportive of strong new initiatives for after-school programs and for child-care. We ought to be able to bridge this nonsensical partisan gap and look after the needs of our kids and the future generations of this country. That means, again, some level of partnership, not a system that is micromanaged out of Washington or that involves a new bureaucracy out of Washington. We do none of that in the Democratic alternative budget. We allow the decisionmaking to be made at the local level. We allow the initiative to be there. We allow tremendous innovation at the State and local level, but we believe there is a partnership needed for those communities and for those nonprofit organizations and for those schools to make a viable investment in our children. Mr. President, there is no funding for President Clinton's education initiatives in this budget resolution. There is no help for school construction. Fourteen million children currently attend classes in buildings that need major renovations; 7 million kids in our country go to school in buildings that currently have safety code violations; 16 million children are in classrooms without proper ventilation, heating, or air conditioning. This is where we get on to a particular concern of mine involving Native American children. We have currently 60 BIA schools that need complete replacement. We are replacing them at the rate of one per year. I thank Chairman Domenici for his sharing a concern with me about this. We haven't really reached an entirely satisfactory solution to this problem, but I do appreciate that we have joined together in the inclusion of report language expressing our concern to the appropriators that additional funds be allocated for these Indian schools. These schools have some children from the most difficult circumstances imaginable, with 40 percent studying in portable classrooms, with dropout rates and other attendant problems of poverty and desperation at such high levels. I thank the chairman for his work with me on this very significant problem, and I understand his profound appreciation of the challenges we face in that regard. So, we have a budget resolution, Mr. President, that contains some strong underlying principles, and I am very, very pleased at that, because I think by maintaining a balanced budget, we can do more than almost any other single thing the Federal Government can do to reduce the cost of borrowing money. That makes going to college, buying a house, buying a car, expanding a business, hiring more employees, all more affordable. That will do more to maintain America's role as the world's great economic superpower than any other single thing we can do, and there is strong bipartisan support in that regard. But we have these other fundamental differences that I am hopeful can be addressed, at least in part, in the course of this coming debate on the Senate budget resolution. We can create a framework for investment in our communities, investment in our kids, in our schools, in health research, in a more meaningful way than the budget resolution that we currently have on the floor allows. We can do that. We can sustain Social Security, we can sustain Medicare, we can make other needed investments, while keeping the budget in balance. This is a remarkable point in time, one that many people thought would never occur in our lifetime. This, along with the fall of the Berlin Wall and some other events, are things that many people thought would not happen, but they are on the verge of happening. Now it is our responsibility in this body, the U.S. Senate, to make sure it happens in a responsible, sustainable way and we continue to make the key investments that will create the framework, create the foundation, for our country to prosper and to continue to grow, to create greater opportunity for all of its citizens. Not to guarantee success for anyone--that comes only about through their own labor, their own efforts, and their own talent--but to create the tools, the starting point for every American, regardless of his or her background, as an opportunity to prosper and to succeed. Mr. President, I want to make one additional comment unrelated directly to the budget resolution but on an issue which does impact our overall economy. I wish to express great, great concern over recent action by our colleagues in the other body who have failed to extend the ethanol fuel tax incentives that the Senate, by a large bipartisan majority, included in the ISTEA legislation. It appears, at this point, that our colleagues on the other side managed in effect to terminate a critically needed tax provision. This provision will not only allow ethanol fuel usage an opportunity to reach critical mass, a substantial benefit to farmers, but also will help clean our air and make this Nation less reliant on unstable Third World nations as sources of petroleum. At this point, however, it appears that there will not even be an opportunity for members of the other body to vote for an extension of the ethanol tax incentives. I am very concerned about this, and it is certainly my hope and expectation that Senate conferees, in the course of negotiating differences between the Senate and the House highway legislation, will give this a very high priority. It is important that we make the proper investments in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. It is also important that we move forward with a commonsense, cost- efficient strategy for expanding use of clean, American alternative fuels. That can only be done by the conferees on the Senate side looking after the interests of the American people in that regard when the conference committee comes about. So, Mr. President, this coming week should be tumultuous but very important for the American people as we deal with the fundamental issues in the budget for the coming fiscal year, as well as transportation and fuel strategy into the next century. With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for such time as I may consume.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by Senators Enzi and Bryan with respect to restrictions on the activities of the Secretary of the Interior. While I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on this issue, I do not believe that this emergency supplemental bill is the appropriate vehicle for this amendment and, I encourage my colleagues on the appropriations conference committee to carefully consider the impact that this amendment will have on the potential for progress between Indian tribes and state governments in this area. As written, this amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from proceeding with proposed regulations to create procedures to permit class III gaming, procedures which would basically facilitate state-tribal negotiations when other avenues are exhausted. There has been a stalemate in Indian gaming compact negotiations since the 1996 Supreme Court Seminole decision. In response, the Senate included language in the FY1998 Interior Appropriations bill sending a strong message to the Secretary that gaming compacts should not be entered into without state involvement. I believe the Secretary has heeded that Congressional directive through the rulemaking process, and that states have been encouraged to participate in the comment period required in the formation of federal regulations. Proponents of this amendment believe they are acting in the best interest of the states. However, eliminating the Secretary's ability to gather commentary and issue procedures to help facilitate dialog on Indian gaming goes against the states' interests. We are fortunate in South Dakota to have a relatively productive relationship between the state and the tribes on gaming issues. However, this amendment, offered without committee consideration or extensive debate, directly limits the federal role in maintaining the balance of tribal, state and federal interests in the gaming negotiation process and I must oppose this step. Federal law requires tribal governments to use gaming revenue to fund essential services such as education, law enforcement and economic development. Without due protection of the rights of tribal governments to negotiate gaming compacts, the entire foundation of tribal sovereignty and government-to-government relations is jeopardized. The uncertainty left by the Seminole case demands that the Department of the Interior and the Congress revisit existing gaming regulations and law. I will urge the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to continue moving forward on legislation to revisit the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by Senators Enzi and Bryan and encourage my colleagues to closely examine any language agreed to by the conferees to ensure that the interests of states, tribes, and the federal government are maintained in the Indian gaming regulatory process.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity today to recognize an extraordinary group of young athletes from Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota. The Northern State University Men's Basketball Team won the 1998 NCAA Division II North Central Regional Basketball Championship held on Sunday, March 8, 1998 in Brookings, South Dakota. In a battle of South Dakota basketball powers, NSU took charge in the final minute to win a hard-fought victory over South Dakota State University. The NSU Wolves, with a 27-5 record, ended the season in a close 67-63 loss to Virginia Union University in the 1998 NCAA Division II Elite Eight Tournament. The athletes that made this great season happen include Scott Hanson, Jared Miller, Todd Schlekeway, Ryan Miller, Kyle Johnson, Dan Fischer, Jim Sumption, Jake Phillips, Ross Pankratz, Dustin Undlin, Mark Rich, Ben Dahl, Jeff Rich, Andy Foster and Brad Hansen. Their coaches include: Bob Olson, Mike Hultz, Brad Christenson, Craig Smith and Kent Leiss. Team Managers are Joe Flynn and Justin Forde. The NSU strength coach is Doug Bull, and the training staff is directed by Lisa McIntyre. The NSU Wolves cheerleaders are Jennifer Eye, Tonya Bird, Jackie Hortes, Jaine Fauth, Erica Paulson, Gary Olson along with advisor Susan Rozell. I want to commend Coach Olson for providing outstanding leadership to the NSU team, and I also want to compliment Ryan Miller on his contribution of 45 points in the regional championship game. The State of South Dakota has much to be proud of in this accomplishment. I again want to congratulate all of these fine young athletes from Northern State University, and to all the many others who contributed to this outstanding accomplishment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I simply want to concur with Chairman D'Amato and to express my gratitude to him for his willingness to work with Senator Thomas and with me and with others who are very concerned about transit needs in rural areas, to recognize that there are very great and very real needs there. Yet there is a finite amount of money, and there are great needs as well in our urban areas. I thank him for having been willing to work with us to recognize that Chicago and New York are major urban areas that will indeed benefit by a significant new infusion of transit money but that, by massaging the budget carefully and coming up with a compromise that does not change the underlying formula system, it still provides a significant infusion of resources for our rural areas. I am very encouraged that we can arrive at a win-win situation. So I commend Chairman D'Amato. I also thank my colleague from my neighboring State of Wyoming, Senator Thomas, for his leadership and his very hard work on trying to devise an approach to this that will work. So I say to my colleague and my very good friend from Illinois that I think we are at a point now where we will be able to move on with a transit amendment that will be of enormous benefit to the State of Illinois, that will not change the formula, but will be able to do some more positive things for those of us in rural areas, including the rural areas in Illinois. I know that my colleague has great concern for those areas, as well, in her own State. So we will all, I think, benefit by this compromise.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the recent confirmation of George McGovern as the United States Representative to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Having spent many years as a devoted public servant, Senator McGovern embodies the highest standards of dedication and integrity. I firmly believe he is the right person to represent this country as part of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and am pleased that my Senate colleagues supported his nomination to this post in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion. There is no person that I can think of alive today that is better prepared for the responsibility of improving nutrition, food production and distribution worldwide. Senator McGovern was not new to the arena of agricultural policy at the time of his election to the U.S. Senate. Having served under the Kennedy Administration as Director of the Food for Peace Program, George McGovern proved early that he had the ability to lead with vision and skill. As a United States delegate to the United Nations FAO Conference in 1961, Senator McGovern made the U.S. offer which led to the first World Food Program making freedom from hunger an international objective. Under the Ford and Carter Administrations, he was also a delegate to the U.N. where he gained esteem as a discerning statesman and cultivated international ties. In Congress, George McGovern was an advocate for the welfare and health of the people. While serving on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, he was an avid supporter of the food stamp program. As a member of that committee, he was active and effective in matters of child nutrition and hunger. As Chairperson of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, he led the committee to assure an adequate diet for the poor and the elderly and for the improved health and well being of all Americans. Because I have always been a strong supporter of nutrition programs in the United States, especially food stamps, WIC, and school lunch programs, I understand the high importance and true value of his work to advance these policies. After Senator McGovern worked to make certain that all Americans have access to adequate nutrition, he in many ways came to symbolize Americans' ``social conscience.'' Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Senator McGovern on his new position and express my complete confidence that he will work with unbridled energy to serve the people by improving nutrition, food production, and distribution throughout the world. He is a true humanitarian and I'm proud he is representing South Dakota and our country to the United Nations.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding time to me and also for his very constructive contribution towards working on a fair and equitable amendment to the transit provisions in the ISTEA II legislation that the Senate is considering. There is an understanding that an agreement has been reached which will allow for an additional $5 billion to be directed toward the transit needs of this country nationwide over the coming 5 years. I am supportive of this. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I certainly will do all I can to find offsets that will be necessary to make this funding a reality. But I think this funding for transit does afford each of our States an opportunity, a unique opportunity, for a win-win circumstance whereby the States that traditionally have drawn significant funds from transit will continue to have that kind of draw and, in fact, will have their transit needs enhanced, but those of us from States that tend to be rural or more recent population growth areas will also find some of our transportation needs also met. Currently, as the Senator from Wyoming has noted, eight States receive about 60 percent of all the transit funds in the country. The formula has not really been changed significantly since 1982, and there has been no opportunity during that time to allow for modest growth in transit programs in States and cities which historically have not received adequate funding to meet their public transportation needs. There will be spending offsets, as noted, that will make this $5 billion enhancement possible. It is important, obviously, that this initiative go forth in the context of a balanced Federal budget. I think we all share that across party lines. There is uniform support for that. But in order to reach these offsets, there also is no doubt that all 50 States will have to participate in providing some reductions in their programs to make this transit money available. It is all the more equitable, then, that all 50 States should at least, to some modest degree, share in the increase in transit funds. The States that currently are donor States--my home State of South Dakota is a donor; that is, we contribute much more to transit than we receive back--will remain donor States. I understand that. I accept that. There are other equities where my home State does better. The same would be said for the State of the Senator from Wyoming. His State will remain a donor State. Those States that are beneficiaries, that receive more than they pay in, will continue to receive more than they pay in. The amendment that Senator Thomas and I have put together would not change that fundamental reality. But what we do feel is that this is an opportunity, when there is this very significant growth in the overall pot of money available for transit, that 7 percent of the total pot be subject to some redistribution to recognize the contemporary realities that we now face. In order to address some of the concerns that have been raised with Senator Thomas and with me and with our staffs, we have made some changes. First, there will be no transferability provision in our amendment, so that the money which would be shifted to States that are currently being underfunded for their transit needs will not be allowed to then be shifted into highway construction or bridge repair or nontransit needs. There was some concern that this amendment was somehow a raid on transit funds for nontransit purposes. We want to make sure--make absolutely certain--that all of our colleagues understand that that is not the case, that the 7 percent component of the transit funds that would be redistributed would be strictly for transit needs. Secondly, it was expressed that there is some concern about whether a shifting of this 7 percent portion of the funds would somehow jeopardize donor States, what are called new-start funds. And I have heard some concern expressed. The fact is that under our amendment, no State which gains under the pending amendment will have their new-start funding cut next year. Under this amendment, we pay for the changes by making modest reductions from the donee States but not from attacking the new-start funds. Thirdly, the question has been raised whether this is need based or not, whether 30 to 35 States that would benefit by this have transit needs. Admittedly, the needs that we have in many of our areas where there are fast growing suburban areas, whether it is fast growing new younger cities or whether it is in rural areas, are different than the needs that our colleagues from New York or Chicago might have, but they are very great needs nonetheless. In my home State of South Dakota, we have a tremendous reliance on our rural transit needs, particularly for seniors to make it to health visits, for groceries, to get to congregate meal sites. All of these things, given the dispersal of the population, the very rural nature of the State, makes transit all the more critical. And it is critical, as well, in our Indian reservation areas. I have nine in my State where the need for access to quality nutrition, education, and medical care would be enormously enhanced by the availability of at least some minimal rural transit assistance. Currently, over 30 percent of our 206 vehicles providing rural transit in our State are 10 years old or older; 70 percent are 5 years old or older. We have had, in the course of the State, local, and Federal partnership to make rural transit a reality, a continuing hardship where some of our counties now, in fact, are terminating their transit programs. We cannot afford to see this kind of retreat, this kind of neglect, for rural transit needs in my State. So I think that anyone who takes a close look at our amendment will recognize the very modest nature of the amendment, that it is only 7 percent of a total pot, a vastly growing pot of money, that would be subject to some modest change of redistribution to meet the contemporary transit needs; that, in fact, the overwhelming share of States would benefit by this redistribution; and it would not incur a significant reduction really in the States that currently have the traditional great benefit from the transit programs. So, again, this is a modest step, but I think it is a modest step in the right direction, one that will contribute greater equity, one that will contribute to the creation of what is truly a national transit strategy. And I think every one of our colleagues who come from the traditional large recipient States will recognize that a national commitment to transit assistance will be all the stronger if, in fact, more than eight States benefit but that all 50 States benefit to a greater degree than is currently the case. So, again, I thank my colleague, Senator Thomas from Wyoming, for his work on this in our effort to craft a reasonable and a balanced and a modest change, but one that nonetheless ought to be of great help to the large majority of States as we debate the transit amendment and the infusion of new money into the transit provisions of the ISTEA II legislation. So, with that, I encourage my colleagues to be very supportive of this and to examine the language of our amendment carefully. Mr. President, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the heroic actions of DesRon 61. DesRon 61 consisted of 9 U.S. destroyers which participated in the only surface action in Tokyo Bay during World War II. As part of Admiral William ``Bull'' Halsey's Task Group 38.1, DesRon 61 entered Tokyo Bay on July 22, 1945 and proceeded to engage a Japanese convoy which was attempting to leave the bay undetected. Under the command of Captain T.H. Hederman, DesRon 61 opened fire on the convoy sinking several Japanese ships and forcing the convoy to retreat back into Tokyo Bay. All of us, as Americans, owe a great debt of gratitude to those who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism. Our losses in World War II, especially in the Pacific Theater, were considerable, and we always should remember the brave men and women who fought to defend the freedom and liberty that is so precious to all of us. Mr. President, I would like to commend and thank the crew members of DesRon 61 for their valiant service. Their action that July night, as well as the heroic deeds of all our armed forces in the Pacific, helped defeat the Japanese empire and restore freedom in that theater of the world.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues from North Dakota, Senators Dorgan and Conrad, and our distinguished Minority Leader and my friend from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, in introducing this legislation which will clarify that licensed pharmacies are not included, nor were they ever intended to be included, in the surety bond requirements imposed on certain health care providers under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. At a time when we are properly addressing the rise in fraud and abuse of the Medicare system, we must also be cognizant of the impact some of these efforts will have on the intended beneficiaries of Medicare. This misapplication of the surety bond requirement is one such circumstance, and I urge my colleagues to join us in clarifying that licensed pharmacies were not intended to be in the scope of the surety bond requirement. While the vast majority of health care providers are honest and do their best to comply with Medicare rules, repeated studies have found a great amount of Medicare fraud within the national system--some estimates would place the cost to the American taxpayers at an incredible $24 billion per year. These are dollars that could be used to better compensate honest health care providers, or expand Medicare coverage. I have always been supportive of, and will continue to strongly support, these efforts to crack down on fraud and abuse. We must continue our efforts in that regard. As part of the effort to curb fraud and abuse in the Medicare system, last year Congress enacted a $50,000 surety bond requirement for home health agencies, Durable Medical Equipment (DME) providers, rehabilitation services providers and ambulance services. The law was aimed at fly-by-night home health agencies and DME providers who abuse the system, and not small rural pharmacies. Unfortunately, these pharmacies have been caught up in this broadly written provision of last year's budget reconciliation. Under the definitions incorporated in this surety bond provision, all pharmacies are considered to be DME providers if even a small portion of their business is DME-related. Thus, they must obtain a minimum $50,000 surety bond regardless of how much or how little of their business consists of providing durable medical equipment to Medicare beneficiaries. The surety bond requirement is intended to ensure that the federal government will have recourse in the event of fraud. Many of the perpetrators of fraud and abuse are fly-by-night organizations that can quickly disappear. Many rural pharmacies, however, only offer DME as a service to their Medicare patients. It is not a major profit center for them, and many will stop providing this service rather than undergo the expense of obtaining a minimum $50,000 bond. Rural Medicare patients would then have greater difficulty in obtaining needed DME. The surety bond requirement attacks fraud indirectly, by mandating financial accountability. Pharmacies engaging in fraud will still be liable for their actions. This bill would clarify that the federal surety bond requirement does not apply to licensed pharmacies. It allows states to enforce their own licensing requirements, which can include surety bonds if states feel it necessary. Mr. President, while we must continue our efforts to root out the fraud and abuse that is plaguing our Medicare system, this important clarification will help ensure that our efforts are appropriately targeted and do not have the unintended consequence of denying critical services to Medicare beneficiaries, and I urge my colleagues to support our efforts and to support this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues from North Dakota, Senators Dorgan and Conrad, and our distinguished Minority Leader and my friend from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, in introducing this legislation which will clarify that licensed pharmacies are not included, nor were they ever intended to be included, in the surety bond requirements imposed on certain health care providers under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. At a time when we are properly addressing the rise in fraud and abuse of the Medicare system, we must also be cognizant of the impact some of these efforts will have on the intended beneficiaries of Medicare. This misapplication of the surety bond requirement is one such circumstance, and I urge my colleagues to join us in clarifying that licensed pharmacies were not intended to be in the scope of the surety bond requirement. While the vast majority of health care providers are honest and do their best to comply with Medicare rules, repeated studies have found a great amount of Medicare fraud within the national system--some estimates would place the cost to the American taxpayers at an incredible $24 billion per year. These are dollars that could be used to better compensate honest health care providers, or expand Medicare coverage. I have always been supportive of, and will continue to strongly support, these efforts to crack down on fraud and abuse. We must continue our efforts in that regard. As part of the effort to curb fraud and abuse in the Medicare system, last year Congress enacted a $50,000 surety bond requirement for home health agencies, Durable Medical Equipment (DME) providers, rehabilitation services providers and ambulance services. The law was aimed at fly-by-night home health agencies and DME providers who abuse the system, and not small rural pharmacies. Unfortunately, these pharmacies have been caught up in this broadly written provision of last year's budget reconciliation. Under the definitions incorporated in this surety bond provision, all pharmacies are considered to be DME providers if even a small portion of their business is DME-related. Thus, they must obtain a minimum $50,000 surety bond regardless of how much or how little of their business consists of providing durable medical equipment to Medicare beneficiaries. The surety bond requirement is intended to ensure that the federal government will have recourse in the event of fraud. Many of the perpetrators of fraud and abuse are fly-by-night organizations that can quickly disappear. Many rural pharmacies, however, only offer DME as a service to their Medicare patients. It is not a major profit center for them, and many will stop providing this service rather than undergo the expense of obtaining a minimum $50,000 bond. Rural Medicare patients would then have greater difficulty in obtaining needed DME. The surety bond requirement attacks fraud indirectly, by mandating financial accountability. Pharmacies engaging in fraud will still be liable for their actions. This bill would clarify that the federal surety bond requirement does not apply to licensed pharmacies. It allows states to enforce their own licensing requirements, which can include surety bonds if states feel it necessary. Mr. President, while we must continue our efforts to root out the fraud and abuse that is plaguing our Medicare system, this important clarification will help ensure that our efforts are appropriately targeted and do not have the unintended consequence of denying critical services to Medicare beneficiaries, and I urge my colleagues to support our efforts and to support this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise to fully join in the strong bipartisan support for the nomination of Dr. David Satcher, as expressed on the Senate floor today, for the dual position of U.S. Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health. This Nation is fortunate that a man of Dr. Satcher's dedication, vision and deep commitment to public service has agreed, in fact, to take on this critically important role, a critical role, I might add, that has been unfilled--unfilled--since 1994. It is time to fill this critical position. We have gone more than 3 years without a Surgeon General to push Americans toward better health and healthier lifestyles. Dr. Satcher has served the American people as a family practice physician, as an educator and as an established leader in the public health arena. During his tenure as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Satcher worked to strengthen the critical prevention link in our Nation's public health structure. He tackled the problem of lagging childhood immunization rates, increasing the number of kids immunized by nearly 25 percent. Rates increased from 55 percent in 1992 to 78 percent in 1996. This is an exceptional accomplishment. Under Dr. Satcher's leadership, we reduced by one-fourth the number of children at risk for immunization-preventable diseases, some of them permanently disabling, or even fatal. Dr. Satcher also spearheaded a highly successful program to provide breast and cervical cancer screening to women throughout America. State participation in the CDC breast and cervical cancer screening program increased from 18 to 50 percent. He helped launch an early warning system to detect and prevent foodborne illnesses, such as E. coli. This system was instrumental in tracking and containing salmonella, E. coli and cyclospora, in imported raspberries, outbreaks. Dr. Satcher has wide-ranging support. He is clearly of the political, of the medical mainstream in our Nation. He is endorsed by 133 organizations, including the American Medical Association and many physicians groups, the American Hospital Association and most hospital organizations, the American Nurses Association and many others, including prominent pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Satcher has indicated very clearly to this Senate that he sees his role as providing a focus on issues that unite Americans and not divide them; that he wants to strongly promote a message of abstinence and responsibility to our youth. In a recent letter Dr. Satcher wrote: If I'm confirmed by the Senate, I will work to ensure that every child has a healthy start in life. I will encourage the American people to adopt healthy lifestyles, including physical activity and diet, and I will try to help the American people make sense of a changing health care system so that they can maximize their access to and the quality of the health care they receive. I believe, Madam President, that Dr. Satcher's goals are squarely on target. Our Nation will be well served by a public health leader who could help us foster healthy lifestyles, a consumer advocate who recognizes that strengthening our health care system means empowering individuals to make informed decisions of their own about the care that they receive. I am confident that Dr. Satcher, a man of experience, proven integrity and great insight will help us make these goals a reality. I am confident that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in confirming this important nomination. I yield back my time. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Act of 1998 introduced by Senator Leahy and Senator Campbell. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues for their work in addressing this issue. This bill is about saving lives and protecting the men and women in law enforcement who keep our communities safe. There are few opportunities for the Congress to help local law enforcement, and I thank Senators Leahy and Campbell for bringing this grant program to the attention of the Senate. The Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Act will establish a $25 million matching grant program within the Department of Justice to help state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies purchase needed body armor. According to the Department of Justice, approximately 150,000 state and local law enforcement officers, nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor. Justice estimates that the risk of fatality for officers while not wearing body armor is 14 times higher than for officers equipped with protection on the job. While law enforcement in my rural state of South Dakota does not face the volume of high risk and hazardous situations that police forces in New York or California contend with every day, one preventable death is too many, and this program will help every community protect their officers. To that end, Senators Leahy and Campbell were careful to structure this program to guarantee access for rural states and communities. Under the small state minimum in the Leahy-Campbell bill, South Dakota would be eligible for at least $187,000 per year in federal matching grant funds. The bill also gives the Department of Justice the discretion to lower or waive the matching requirement for communities facing financial hardship. Life saving body armor can run $500-700, keeping bullet proof vests out of reach for many small and rural communities with extremely limited resources. I also strongly support the recognition of Indian tribal law enforcement needs included in this bill. Juvenile crime and gang activity are on the rise on rural reservations, and resources are continually scarce. This bill will allow tribes to access funds on equal footing with state and local police forces. I am committed to encouraging cooperation between tribal and non-tribal law enforcement agencies in my state and throughout the country for the important and shared goal of combating crime nationwide. Recognizing tribal law enforcement through this grant program is an important step forward. Mr. President, the need to protect our law enforcement officers is pressing. This legislation will outfit our law enforcement officers with the equipment necessary to protect themselves while protecting our families. I encourage speedy Judiciary Committee consideration of this initiative and urge full Senate support for this much needed grant program.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Act of 1998 introduced by Senator Leahy and Senator Campbell. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues for their work in addressing this issue. This bill is about saving lives and protecting the men and women in law enforcement who keep our communities safe. There are few opportunities for the Congress to help local law enforcement, and I thank Senators Leahy and Campbell for bringing this grant program to the attention of the Senate. The Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Act will establish a $25 million matching grant program within the Department of Justice to help state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies purchase needed body armor. According to the Department of Justice, approximately 150,000 state and local law enforcement officers, nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor. Justice estimates that the risk of fatality for officers while not wearing body armor is 14 times higher than for officers equipped with protection on the job. While law enforcement in my rural state of South Dakota does not face the volume of high risk and hazardous situations that police forces in New York or California contend with every day, one preventable death is too many, and this program will help every community protect their officers. To that end, Senators Leahy and Campbell were careful to structure this program to guarantee access for rural states and communities. Under the small state minimum in the Leahy-Campbell bill, South Dakota would be eligible for at least $187,000 per year in federal matching grant funds. The bill also gives the Department of Justice the discretion to lower or waive the matching requirement for communities facing financial hardship. Life saving body armor can run $500-700, keeping bullet proof vests out of reach for many small and rural communities with extremely limited resources. I also strongly support the recognition of Indian tribal law enforcement needs included in this bill. Juvenile crime and gang activity are on the rise on rural reservations, and resources are continually scarce. This bill will allow tribes to access funds on equal footing with state and local police forces. I am committed to encouraging cooperation between tribal and non-tribal law enforcement agencies in my state and throughout the country for the important and shared goal of combating crime nationwide. Recognizing tribal law enforcement through this grant program is an important step forward. Mr. President, the need to protect our law enforcement officers is pressing. This legislation will outfit our law enforcement officers with the equipment necessary to protect themselves while protecting our families. I encourage speedy Judiciary Committee consideration of this initiative and urge full Senate support for this much needed grant program.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I will yield to the Senator.