[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5093-S5094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. PRESSLER:
  S. 1758. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to 
improve the administration of the act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


           The Packers and Stockyards Improvement Act of 1996

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that 
represents the first of several steps I am taking to get action on 
problems facing our domestic cattle industry. For the past year, I have 
been pressing the Clinton administration to address meatpacker 
concentration and utilize existing antitrust laws to make sure that 
cattle are sold in an open and competitive market. We have seen some 
action on the part of the administration to solve this problem. 
Frankly, its proposals offer nothing new. My bill is a necessary first 
step to pry open the market.
  Another step in the process is to get the Senate more engaged on the 
issue. As part of that effort, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition and

[[Page S5094]]

Forestry, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation will hold a series of hearings on this subject next 
month. Cattle producers are facing the worst economic times in recent 
memory. The President has the authority to order immediate Justice 
Department action. Antitrust laws should be enforced now.
  I have been saying that for months, but my words have fallen on deaf 
ears. Only by taking action to enforce antitrust laws already on the 
books can we ensure the long-term economic viability of the U.S. cattle 
industry.
  South Dakota ranchers know that any real solution to beef prices must 
include antitrust action. It took only a few days and a 14 percent 
increase in the price of gasoline for the President to ask the Justice 
Department to establish a five-person task force to investigate 
possible antitrust violations. The facts are these: first, cattle 
prices are at their lowest levels in years; second, only a handful of 
the top packers control nearly 85 percent the market; and third, retail 
prices do not reflect the dramatically reduced price paid for cattle. 
Something is not right.
  The bill I am introducing accomplishes three things that South Dakota 
cattlemen have told me must be done. First, the bill would establish a 
livestock dealer trust. This would protect sellers from any losses when 
cattle are sold on commission to a dealer or market agency that goes 
bankrupt. This was part of the Senate-passed farm bill, but was not in 
the final version that was signed into law. Second, the bill would 
require the Packers and Stockyards Administration to include formula-
priced cattle in the definition of captive supplies. During the Senate 
Commerce Committee hearing I held last year in Huron, SD, producers 
made it loud and clear that this needed to be done. Finally, the bill 
would require the Secretary of Agriculture to make timely reports on 
the numbers of livestock and livestock products that are exported and 
imported, and also require the reporting of prices paid for livestock.
  The Senate needs to carefully review this bill and other issues 
confronting the U.S. cattle industry. Packer concentration, price 
manipulation, possible price fixing and captive supply all must be 
looked at and a definite course of action implemented. The introduction 
of this bill today is the first step in this process.
  We need to keep in mind that old saying ``if it ain't broke, don't 
fix it.'' Well the U.S. cattle industry is broke and it needs fixing, 
now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
       By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Sarbanes):

  S. 1759. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to require that 
written notice be furnished by the Office of Personnel Management 
before making any susbtantial change in the health benefits program for 
Federal employees; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


      The Federal Health Benefit Change Accountability Act of 1996

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with 
my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, the Federal Health 
Benefit Change Accountability Act. This bill is also being introduced 
in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ben Cardin. Our 
legislation will ensure that Congress has an opportunity to respond to 
any proposed reductions in retired Federal employee health benefits.
  I want to save lives, save jobs, and save money. The 1996 
prescription plan for Federal retirees that Blue Cross/Blue Shield 
negotiated with the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] is 
jeopardizing jobs, and in some cases may be jeopardizing lives. I want 
this policy changed for 1997, and I want to make sure that Congress is 
well informed of any future changes in health benefits.
  Our bill will protect retired federal employees from the type of 
attacks on their earned health benefits that we are seeing with this 
plan. The bill would require a new reporting process at OPM. OPM would 
have to provide an annual report to Congress that would describe any 
significant changes in Federal retiree health benefits. The report 
would explain how proposed changes would affect retirees--both 
financially and in quality of care. The report would also explain what 
cost savings OPM expected to achieve. Congress would have time to react 
if there were concerns with the changes.
  This legislation is necessary because of the terrible situation 
our Federal retirees find themselves in today with their Blue Cross/
Blue Shield prescription benefits. Retirees in this prescription plan 
have a new 20-percent copayment at their neighborhood pharmacies. This 
is forcing retirees out of neighborhood pharmacy and away from the 
pharmacists they know and trust. They are forced to use mail order for 
most of their prescription needs, where there is no copayment, and 
where their care consists of an 800 number and a mail box.

  I've been meeting with Federal retiree groups and with pharmacy 
groups, and what I'm hearing about this plan has disturbed me greatly.
  I'm hearing about elderly retirees who are confused about how and 
when to use mail order.
  I'm hearing about local pharmacies that are losing as much as 30 
percent of their business and that are going to have to lay off 
employees. I'm hearing about jobs being lost because local pharmacies 
are being cut out of the business of providing care to Federal 
retirees.
  I'm not antimail order, but I think it should be used under the right 
circumstances. A person can't wait for mail order when a weekend ear 
ache or a stomach virus strikes. A local pharmacist must be available 
right then. That is the safety net that allows mail order to work.
  As my colleagues know, retirees have special health needs that are 
different from the majority of younger Federal employees. They 
frequently take more than one medication at a time, and they have 
complicated medical histories.
  They also need the personal drug education and counseling that local 
pharmacy is able to provide. When they don't get this education and 
counseling, studies show they end up in the hospital because of 
noncompliance with their drug directions.
  Community pharmacy is the last health care professional a retiree 
will see before taking that prescription. We need to think very 
seriously about what that means and what the consequences are to 
retirees. Unfortunately, OPM did not put enough thought into these 
consequences when the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan was approved.
  The very people who are unable to pay the 20-percent copayment 
because they are on fixed incomes and are forced to use mail order, are 
the people who are most likely to need the face to face counseling and 
drug education that they cannot get at mail order pharmacy.
  That's why we need a drug benefit that achieves fiscal discipline but 
that allows retirees choice in their pharmacy care. Otherwise we end up 
treating prescriptions like a commodity. We end up managing the benefit 
instead of managing the patient.
  Federal retirees have served us honorably and we must value them. We 
don't value them with words, we do it with actions. They earned and 
deserve retirement security and health security, and I want to see this 
government honor the promises that were made to them when they signed 
up for service.
  The legislation we are introducing today will help ensure that the 
promise of quality health care is not bargained away by the Office of 
Personnel Management in the future.
                                 ______