Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the beginning of National American Indian Heritage Month. This November we will honor the achievements made by American Indians and Alaskan Natives throughout the history of our country. For many years, Native Americans strived for an official recognition of their people. The first observance of a day celebrating the contributions of American Indians occurred on the second Saturday of May 1916 in New York State. In 1990, Congress, with my support, passed a joint resolution declaring November 1990 as National American Indian Heritage Month, dedicated to appreciating the impact of Native Americans on the foundation and development of our Nation. Rooted in the history and culture of South Dakota, as well as the United States, lies the steadfast influence of the Native American people. The Great Sioux Nation of South Dakota consists of nine separate tribes, the Cheyenne River Sioux, the Crow Creek Sioux, the Flandreau Santee Sioux, the Lower Brule Sioux, the Oglala Sioux, the Rosebud Sioux, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, the Standing Rock Sioux, and the Yankton Sioux. I would like to pay tribute to the more than 62,000 Native Americans in South Dakota and the Native Americans throughout our country whose presence and traditions have enriched our communities. With the commencement of National American Indian Heritage Month, we have been given an excellent opportunity to educate ourselves about the cultural and historical influence of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. In November, I encourage everyone to join South Dakota in our reverence of Native Americans with the hope that our Government can continue to make the concerns of American Indians a priority and to ensure that their freedoms and way of life are preserved.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in order to meet its reconciliation instructions, the Banking Committee recommended that S. 1562, the Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005 be included in the banking title of the budget reconciliation bill. Earlier this year, I joined with Senators Enzi, Hagel, and Allard in introducing this important legislation which has garnered strong bipartisan support and was overwhelmingly approved by the Banking Committee last month. Additionally, it has the strong support of the administration, Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the financial services industry. Deposit insurance is one of the cornerstones of our country's financial system. It protects depositors against risks they cannot control, ensures stability, and allows deposits to remain in our local communities. This important legislation will ensure that deposit insurance maintains its strength even during times of economic weakness. Borne out of the need to promote financial stability during the Great Depression, deposit insurance has served depositors well by providing stability to banks and to the economy, and it is especially critical to our Nation's smaller financial institutions and community banks. While there have been differing opinions as to how deposit insurance should be reformed, there is general agreement that the system needs to be reformed and modernized. The banking industry is rapidly evolving and is becoming increasingly complex and sophisticated. Yet the last time any change was made to our system of deposit insurance was over 20 years ago. Reform is long overdue. The time has come for the system that was put in place to promote the stability of the banking system be appropriately reformed to keep pace with the evolution of that system. Depositors must have confidence that their hard-earned money is protected, including the funds that cover their daily living expenses to the funds they are saving for retirement and a rainy day. To that end, this legislation introduces some very key reforms. First, it merges the bank insurance fund with the savings association insurance fund to create the deposit insurance fund. By doing so, we create a stronger and more diversified fund, and eliminate the possibility for disparities in premiums between banks and thrifts. Second, insurance premiums will be risk-based to ensure that banks pay based on the risk they pose to the system, and the FDIC will be able to price insurance premiums accordingly. The current system does not allow for premium assessments to be based on risk, and therefore, safer banks are subsidizing riskier banks. This inflexibility will be eliminated and the assessment burden will be distributed more evenly and fairly over time. When deposit insurance is priced for risk, whether the coverage limit is higher or lower is less relevant. Banks will have to pay higher premiums for riskier behavior, reducing any moral hazard. It is important to note, however, that in developing a new risk based premium system, the FDIC should not negatively impact the cost of homeownership or community credit by charging higher premiums to institutions simply because they fund mortgages and other types of lending through advances from Federal Home Loan Banks. Congress reaffirmed this relationship between community lenders and Home Loan Banks most recently in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and deposit insurance reform is not intended to impose any financial cost on the relationship through direct or indirect premiums. Third, the FDIC will have the discretion to periodically index coverage levels for both general and retirement accounts to keep pace with inflation. This is a compromise made in order to secure the Bush administration's support. Frankly, I feel some form of automatic indexation would be far preferable, and I am disappointed that indexation is left as a discretionary matter. The real value of deposit insurance coverage is now less than half of what it was in 1980 when it was set at $100,000. By increasing the level of coverage for retirement accounts, we are adjusting for the real value of coverage. Insuring retirement accounts up to $250,000 will keep the coverage level up with inflation and will promote financial stability for individual retirees. Retirement accounts are the only accounts under this bill that will get a higher coverage level. I believe in the current environment, with the uncertainty surrounding social security and pension benefits, that it is critical that we provide appropriate coverage for the hard-working Americans who have saved for their retirement and long-term care needs. This legislation strikes the appropriate balance in that regard. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the banking community in South Dakota for the invaluable and critical role they have played in this process over the past 5 years. I truly appreciate the input and recommendations that I have received from the industry overall. I would also like to thank Chairman Shelby, and Ranking Member Sarbanes for their leadership, Senators Enzi, Hagel and Allard for the many hours of hard work, and FDIC Chairman Don Powell for his commitment to deposit insurance reform.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my thoughts on the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act currently pending before the Senate. On its own, this bill would cut about $39.1 billion from mandatory spending programs over the next 5 years. But it is a mistake to look at this bill on its own because the reconciliation process under which this bill comes to the floor is made up of three parts that when put together will cut funding for critical programs, implement irresponsible tax cuts, and actually increase both the deficit and national debt. Today we are considering the first part of the reconciliation process, a package of spending cuts. As a member of the Budget Committee, I opposed this bill in committee and will oppose it when the full Senate votes on it later this week. While I am pleased the bill contains provisions related to FDIC reform that I have fought for, overall this bill simply takes us in the wrong direction. I believe, in the interest of providing more tax cuts for wealthy Americans, the leadership in the Senate is cutting funding for programs, many of which are critical in my home State of South Dakota. For example, the bill includes $4.57 billion in cuts to Medicaid that are the result of changes in the way pharmacies are reimbursed, something that may harm community pharmacies in my State. There are new restrictions placed on State Medicaid targeted case management programs, which have created much concern among consumer advocacy groups. Also included is a provision that reduces payments to long-term care providers for unpaid beneficiary payments or ``bad debt,'' a provision that is being opposed by leading nursing home and consumer groups. Further, I am very troubled by the $3 billion in cuts to agricultural programs, including a 2.5 percent across-the-board cut in commodity programs and $1.1 billion in cuts to conservation programs over the next 5 years. This proposal would weaken the essential safety net that we need to foster economic development in rural America and would be especially difficult in this time of weak commodity prices. The 2002 farm bill, our contract with rural America, has already come in at $14 billion under projected costs. Simply put, agriculture has paid enough. If this Senate proposal were not bad enough, I have little doubt that the package that will be brought back after conference with the House will be worse. The House is considering a proposal to cut at least $50 billion in spending over the next 5 years. The Washington Post notes that the House package will ``cut back Federal aid to State child- support enforcement programs, limit Federal payments to some foster care families, and cut welfare payments to the disabled.'' In addition, the House bill includes $3.7 billion in cuts to farm programs, including $844 million in cuts to food stamps. Budgets are about priorities, and I understand the need to bring spending under control. But it seems irresponsible to do so at the expense of ordinary people and struggling family farmers when huge agribusinesses continue to reap millions without effective payment caps in place, and tax cuts for multimillionaires are being preserved. I recently received a thoughtful letter on the budget from Bishop Mark S. Hanson, the presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ELCA, and signed by all 66 ELCA bishops. I am a member of the ELCA, and while I do not take directions on how to vote from my church, my religious faith and the values it instills in me do impact my views. As the letter states, ``Programs such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) help to keep struggling families together and assist low-income working families in moving to higher economic ground. This is not the time to cut such important programs while using the cuts to pay for tax breaks for those who don't need them.'' The country faces a series of challenges that Congress is failing to address. Instead of cutting domestic programs to pave the way for additional tax cuts, the Congress should focus on solving the problem of soaring energy costs. High energy prices are a tax on the middle class and drain disposable income, causing the public to spend less and make painful tradeoffs all in order to keep the car or truck filled with gas. The Democrats have a plan to reduce gasoline prices and help families with high winter heating costs. Unfortunately, the congressional leadership is not focusing on the real needs of Americans in choosing to devote an entire week to a package of budget cuts as part of a larger plan to push a tax cuts for the rich agenda. If this truly was a deficit reduction package, or even if the savings were going to pay the costs of hurricane relief, that would be one thing. However, when this bill is approved, the Senate is expected to begin working on the second piece of the reconciliation process, an irresponsible tax cut bill. The reconciliation instructions approved as a part of last spring's budget resolution provided for an additional $70 billion in tax cuts. While the tax bill has not been finalized, early indications are this bill will not result in tax breaks for middle and working class Americans, but will once again reward the wealthiest in our society. And when these tax cuts are included, the Republican's deficit reduction omnibus reconciliation plan will actually increase the deficit by $20 billion to $30 billion over the next 5 years. So what many in the majority party in Washington will call trimming the fat actually increases the limit on the national credit card. This leads to the final piece of the Republicans' reconciliation plan--Congress will be required to pass legislation to raise, yet again, the Federal debt ceiling by $781 billion. It may surprise many Americans to learn that a large portion of our Nation's public debt is actually held by foreign countries like Japan and China. By further increasing our debt and the need for more foreign financing of that debt, we give other countries substantial leverage over our economy and threaten our Nation's economic well-being. Make no mistake, the decisions we are making in enacting this legislation will have long lasting consequences for our economy. As I said earlier, budgets are about priorities. The budget proposal we have before us simply sets the wrong priorities by cutting programs for the most vulnerable in our society to make way for additional tax cuts for millionaires, all the while increasing the debt burden we will pass on to our children and grandchildren. These are not priorities that I--or the vast majority of Americans--can support.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have recently received a very powerful and thoughtful letter from the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ELCA, of which I am a member. While my religious faith is central to the values which inform my political decisions, these decisions are never based exclusively on direction I might receive from my religious denomination's leaders. Nonetheless, in this instance I believe that this letter, signed by all 66 ELCA bishops, sends the Senate a profoundly important and timely message concerning the budget reconciliation bill currently before this body. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record, and I urge all my colleagues to take this message of Christian compassion and values to heart.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I want to discuss the importance of breast cancer awareness. October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and during this time, a concerted effort is being made to bring awareness to the public about the importance of women taking control over their health. As a husband of a two-time breast cancer survivor, I am deeply committed to supporting this campaign and to finding a cure for this awful disease. I understand that finding out that a loved one has breast cancer is frightening news and one of the most difficult experiences any family can encounter. Unfortunately, far too many families face these challenges each year. In fact, according to the American Cancer Society, one in three women is diagnosed with breast cancer. Yet initiatives, such as the National Breast Cancer Awareness campaign, are working to help to decrease these numbers by educating women about the importance of preventive efforts such as self-exams and mammograms. Even though we have the most advanced medical technologies and experts in the world, we have continued to face increases in the prevalence of breast cancer in recent years. In fact, research has shown that breast cancer rates have increased progressively since 1998. Though the national rate of breast cancer mortality has fallen since 2002, still approximately 24 percent of South Dakota women diagnosed with breast cancer do not survive. One of the best ways to decrease the breast cancer mortality rate is through early detection and treatment, which is the fundamental goal of the National Breast Cancer Awareness campaign. Recognizing this goal, each year my wife Barbara and I sponsor a mammogram van at the South Dakota State Fair. This mammogram van, provided by a local health care facility, offers two days of free mammograms for uninsured, low-income women. We are proud to sponsor such an important service. As we learned with Barbara's case, early detection and treatment is key in beating this disease and that is why women must have access to mammogram exams. Because of the work of the American Cancer Society, scientists, researchers, and the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign, I look forward to the future when women and families do not have to hear the words ``breast cancer.'' And until that day comes, I will continue to show my support for the goals of this critical campaign for women's health.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend the Veterans of Foreign Wars Auxiliary Unit No. 60 from Humboldt, SD, for their many years of devoted service to the Humboldt community. In late November of 1929, the Humboldt VFW Auxiliary No. 60 began with only 10 members. Seventy-six years later, Unit No. 60 boasts 68 devoted and patriotic members, all from the Humboldt community and surrounding areas. Each year, Unit No. 60 participates in numerous community activities. In addition to volunteering at the Sioux Falls VA hospital and donating money for personal care items, coffee, and other products on the VA wish list, the women of Unit No. 60 also help coordinate Bingo Night, the VA Halloween party, and a variety of Christmas activities. During the holiday season, these caring and patriotic ladies also distribute gifts while visiting shut-ins and veterans residing in nursing homes. Each December, they send stamps to community members serving in the military, and also buy postage for local groups wishing to send care packages to soldiers overseas. Additionally, during Scholarship Week, held every November at the West Central School District, these altruistic women bring apples to all the teachers, aids, janitors, members of the kitchen staff, and administration. For the past 14 years, members of the Humboldt VFW have been fixtures at the annual Threshing Bee held every August. For 3 days, they prepare breakfast and sell their famous homemade pies from their familiar canvas tent. In turn, funds they raise support community projects. This year, Unit No. 60 graciously donated to numerous local charities and organizations, namely: West Central Future Farmers of America, Community Club Fund, Volunteer Firemen, Volunteer Ambulance, Buddy Walk, Special Olympics, and Creative Arts for Veterans, in addition to purchasing dictionaries that were distributed to third-grade students at West Central Elementary. Mr. President, I am proud to have this opportunity to honor the Veterans of Foreign Wars Auxiliary Unit No. 60 for their outstanding and compassionate service. Their commitment to our Nation's veterans and to furthering and enhancing the education of elementary school students is admirable. I strongly commend their years of hard work and dedication, and I am very pleased that their substantial efforts are being publicly honored and celebrated. It is with great honor that I share their impressive commitment to civic duty with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. If I may ask a question of my colleague and my friend from North Dakota, does it not seem to the Senator that part of the reason we have lost essentially our entire export market for beef in America is in part because even countries that want to buy American beef, that understand we have the safest, highest quality beef in the world, are not confident that we are, in fact, selling them American beef? Their fear is that this may be Canadian, it may be Mexican, it may be Argentine. Who knows where this beef comes from in the United States because we are one of the few industrialized democracies in the world that do not have country-of-origin labeling in place for meat. That undermines the integrity of our sales abroad and further complicates our recapture of these lost export markets. Does the Senator see that as one of the contributing factors to our loss of export market?

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue over which I am outraged, the continued delay of mandatory country-of-origin labeling and the manner in which this issue has continually been addressed. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling was authorized in the 2002 farm bill and signed into law by this President. This program is widely supported not only by about 85 percent of our Nation's consumers but also overwhelmingly by our Nation's producers. This program is not only a consumer right-to-know issue, it is a valuable marketing tool for ranchers and farmers. During consideration of the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture appropriations measure, the Senate passed a sense of the Senate supporting mandatory country-of-origin labeling, or COOL. The House version of the spending measure included a 1-year delay for meat and meat products. During closed door consideration of the omnibus spending measure, the Republican House leadership was successful in inserting a 2-year delay for all commodities covered under the mandatory COOL Program with the exception of fish and shellfish. This secretive, closed-door process was outrageous at that time. The omnibus package was settled behind closed doors, with no input from COOL supporters. Then, in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations bill, the House version included, once again, a 1-year delay for meat and meat products covered under mandatory COOL. The Senate, speaking in support of a mandatory program, included $3.1 million for an audit-based compliance program to cover implementation costs. I repeat, a $3.1 million appropriations for implementation. This small spending level, which was requested by the Bush administration for program implementation, only served to show how grossly the Department of Agriculture overestimated implementation costs for COOL. On Tuesday evening, House Republican Chairman Bonilla convened a conference committee on which I serve, meeting on the most recent agricultural spending measure. For those of us who expected an open discussion on outstanding items, we were sorely and entirely mistaken. The chairman recessed that meeting subject to the call of the Chair without ever discussing COOL or indicating when we would reconvene. Instead of an open discussion on this outstanding item, instead of any up-or-down public vote, the chairman simply modified, singlehandedly, language on the final report to include a 2-year delay--behind closed doors yet again, pushing back mandatory implementation, this time until September 30, 2008. Let me repeat: The Senate Agriculture appropriations bill contained no delay in country-of-origin labeling; in fact, it included funding for implementation. The House Agriculture appropriations bill called for a 1-year delay. That happened behind closed doors without the benefit of debate, without the benefit of a vote. The chairman actually inserted language calling for a 2-year delay, kicking this program over into the next farm bill, essentially a do-over on the last 2002 farm bill in which we initially made the law of the land country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat products. This is truly outrageous. It is the purpose of a conference committee to discuss outstanding items in an open manner, not to change policy in back-room deals, in closed-door discussions in the dead of the night. What happened on Wednesday was an incredibly corrupt process that failed the American public and failed the political process of our Nation. The chairman chose not to address COOL simply because he knew he would lose. It was easier to address this item behind closed doors and avoid any vote because of the broad bipartisan support in the Senate that this program enjoys. It is because of the 2-year delay and the appalling process by which this open item was considered that I refused--I refused--to sign the conference report. It is because of this wrong doing that I will also vote against the conference report when it is considered by the full Senate. Not only was the process by which this outstanding issue was considered absolutely corrupt, this delay yet again takes another stab at rewriting our farm bill. The farm bill, when signed into law, did not indicate an implementation date of September 30, 2008, for mandatory COOL. It specifically stated September 30, 2004. In order to change this implementation date and rewrite farm bill policy, the majority leadership has had to hold two closed-door conferences to achieve its back-room goals. The farm bill is a contract with rural America that needs to be honored--not modified, changed, not destroyed in closed, back-door dealings during the night. The most recent debacle with COOL is yet another illustration of how House congressional leadership is failing rural America. The Bush administration advocates stripping in excess of $3 billion from this farm bill during the budget reconciliation process, weakening the essential safety net that we need, that our Nation needs to foster economic development in rural America, especially in time of weak commodity prices. The President advocated reducing commodity payments and leaving producers in the cold. The President insisted last year that $3 billion be cannibalized from the Conservation Security Program to fund a 2003- 2004 either/or agriculture assistance disaster package. I find this is wrong, considering the pending Doha WTO negotiations and this administration's platform on gutting programs. All of these reductions were supported by the President despite the fact that the farm bill has come in at $14 billion under the projected costs. Agriculture has already paid enough. The administration advocated closing over 700 Farm Service Agency offices nationwide, including 24 percent of the offices in my home State of South Dakota. I know that other States also were subject to even larger percentage cuts of offices. Not only would the administration scrap or limit farm bill programs, the plan is it would make it more difficult for the producer to obtain information about the farm bill programs that are available, leaving producers too often to fend for themselves. The administration has yet to issue disaster payments from over 1 year ago. Producers in my home State of South Dakota are still waiting for Livestock Assistance Program payments and the American Indian Livestock Feed Program payment. Even on the few payments that were issued, interest was not calculated properly, prompting a redo on parts of those payments. Families have made financial decisions around this financial obligation. Congress did its part in passing the disaster package last year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's computer software glitch excuse, quite frankly, wore thin many months ago. These delayed payments are especially unacceptable considering that USDA already had a process for getting money to producers. The USDA selected a crucial agriculture disaster package to use, frankly, as a guinea pig for a new untested computer software program. The USDA and President Bush, even after opening our markets to Canadian beef, opening the market to a tidal wave of Canadian beef and cattle, would propose to open our borders to Japanese beef even before we can secure that export market. The Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the agriculture spending measure but sent a strong message to this administration that the Department of Agriculture should not allow Japanese beef into the United States until Japan allows beef into that nation. A group of 21 Senators in a bipartisan fashion also introduced a bill this week that would impose economic sanctions on Japanese beef unless Japan opens their borders to American beef. American producers continue to lose $3.14 billion a year while the Japan market stays closed, and the administration has yet to open Japan's borders to American beef. This is another example of a flawed trade agenda that fails to work for the domestic U.S. agricultural producer. I continue to hear from ranchers and farmers in South Dakota who are tired of seeing unrealized promises in these trade deals. We buy the Japanese cars, we buy the Japanese electronics, but Japan has yet to comply with WTO, and Japan hast yet to comply with scientific standards in accepting the safest and highest quality beef in the world from the United States. The Department of Agriculture is not making certain our farmers can stay in the fold. The administration is undermining our family farmers at too many turns. The most recent action on mandatory country-of- origin labeling and the closed-door consideration that prompted this move is utterly unacceptable. The USDA worked with a majority of Members of Congress to delay mandatory COOL behind closed doors. The USDA's actions are just simply strong examples of how wrong the administration has been on too many agricultural issues. The Department of Agriculture, it seems to me, is responsive primarily to the packing and processing industry, the large agribusiness conglomerates, instead of the family farmer and the family rancher. I simply believe that our rural communities and agricultural producers can do better. I believe that America can do better than this backward, behind-closed-doors, in-the-dead-of-night process that has taken over this year's Agriculture appropriations conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. My friend from Iowa is correct. For the past several years, the Center for Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research has conducted research on the internal mechanisms and most effective treatment of gulf war illnesses and other undiagnosed post-deployment illnesses. This research has been funded by Congress and overseen by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command and its peer-review process. Continued funding for this program will enable the continuation of research into a variety of illnesses reported by personnel upon returning from the gulf war.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to publicly honor and congratulate O'Gorman High School of Sioux Falls, Alcester-Hudson Elementary, and Corsica Elementary on achieving blue ribbon status under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act. All three schools earned the prestigious blue ribbon designation based on strong test scores and a myriad of other successes. These three schools are among only 295 recognized nationwide this year, and O'Gorman is 1 of only 40 high schools to receive this distinction. In fact, O'Gorman is the only high school in the entire Denver region, which includes South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and Utah, to earn this honor. For public schools such as Alcester-Hudson Elementary and Corsica Elementary to qualify for blue ribbon status, they must meet State testing levels or have a student body comprised of a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students, yet demonstrate improvement. Achieving this goal is a wonderful accomplishment and Alcester-Hudson and Corsica elementary schools ought to be commended. Although all South Dakota public schools are required to take part in Dakota STEP, the State's test for tracking progress under the No Child Left Behind Act, private schools, on the other hand, are under no such obligation. Nonetheless, O'Gorman administers the Dakota STEP exam to provide parents and supporters a comparison between O'Gorman students and those of other schools. Unlike the criteria used to rate public schools, the standards private schools are required to meet in order to achieve blue ribbon status are more rigorous, as students must place in the top 10 percent on both the State test and on the national level for reading and math. As noted by Kyle Groos, principal of O'Gorman High School, the junior class scored in the top 10 percent of schools on the State test, with more than 90 percent of students considered proficient or advanced in reading and math. While test scores play a significant role in determining whether a school fits the blue ribbon standard, O'Gorman also submitted in its application a 24-page report detailing the school's various attributes. The statement highlighted students' high participation in the performing arts, the school's many sports championships, the 13,000 hours students devoted to volunteering and community service last year, as well as O'Gorman's emphasis on foreign language, math and theology studies. Earning this distinction under No Child Left Behind is certainly an achievement for all these outstanding schools; however, O'Gorman was also a blue ribbon school under the Federal Government's former recognition program that began in 1982. Like the previous Blue Ribbon Schools Program, this distinction is one that never expires unless the program is replaced. I am proud to have this opportunity to honor these three exceptional schools. It is a privilege for me to share with my colleagues the exemplary leadership and tireless commitment to education O'Gorman High School, Alcester-Hudson Elementary, and Corsica Elementary provide to their students. I strongly commend the hard work and dedication all the faculty, administrators, and staff devote to these three institutions, and I am very pleased that their dedication and the students' substantial efforts are being publicly honored and celebrated. On behalf of all South Dakotans, I would like to congratulate these three extraordinary schools and wish them all the best.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I have joined Senator Corzine to introduce the Medicare Do Not Call Act. I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation which will protect Medicare beneficiaries from being subjected to telemarketing campaigns related to the new Medicare Part D prescription drug program. The Part D program will begin in January 2006, and as many of my colleagues are already aware, this program will turn the administration of the benefit over to health insurance companies. Between now and January 1, 2006, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a great deal of information from the Federal Government, insurance companies, and local organizations regarding how to sign up for the program. Many beneficiaries have already received information about the low-income coverage options. Just last week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced which health plans have been approved to offer the benefit. In South Dakota, there will be 18 companies offering the stand-alone prescription drug plan or PDP. Three companies will offer the Medicare Advantage plan, which is an HMO or Health Maintenance Organization type plan. Starting in October, all of these companies will be allowed to start marketing their plans. While I do think it is important for seniors to have access to information about the various options, I do not think it is OK for these companies to be promoting their products through aggressive telemarketing campaigns. There are plenty of other, less invasive ways for these companies to get information about their Part D product to Medicare beneficiaries and I encourage those efforts, whether they be mailings, holding information sessions or releasing newspaper and television ads. The Medicare Do Not Call Act would prohibit health plans from telemarketing their new Medicare prescription drug plans to beneficiaries. The bill permits representatives of insurance companies offering the Medicare prescription drug benefit to speak with and return calls to beneficiaries who initiate contact and permits plans to call beneficiaries that are already enrolled in their plans. The prohibition only applies to solicitation calls. Those companies that violate the law are subjected to criminal penalties for telemarketing fraud related to the program. I think that this provision is very important, so seniors do not feel their privacy is being violated by constant phone calls from numerous insurance companies calling their homes. It is important that seniors do not feel pressured to choose one plan or another because of persistent telemarketers. Starting November 15, 2005, all seniors will be able to start selecting which insurance company they would like to administer their drug benefit. It is my hope that between now and then the information sent to beneficiaries is accessible and easily understood. I do have great concern that many seniors are going to feel extremely overwhelmed, confused and frankly very frustrated about the information they receive about the multitude of coverage options. I think that the Medicare Do Not Call Act is one step we can take to simplify the process and help seniors. While I did not support final passage of the legislation that created this program because of several concerns I have about how it will impact South Dakotans, I still think it is important for seniors to examine this program closely and decide for themselves whether the new Medicare Part D drug benefit will be worthwhile to them. I will continue to work hard to ensure that the people of my State have sufficient information before they are expected to make a decision. I will also continue to support legislation and other initiatives to make improvements to the program and the administration of it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am joined by several of my colleagues in the Senate to introduce the Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will provide some relief to seniors from rising Medicare premiums, and ensure that their Social Security cost-of-living-adjustments or COLAs are made available for other essential needs such as food and housing. I first thank Senators Cantwell, Leahy, Corzine, Murray, Salazar, Reed and Mikulski in joining me in this effort. Last Congress several colleagues joined Senator Daschle and myself to introduce a similar bill. Representative Herseth in the House has introduced the companion bill today, and I thank her as well for her leadership on this and other important issues to seniors in South Dakota. In my home State, 1 in 6 people are Medicare beneficiaries. That represents 16 percent of our total State population. Many of these individuals live on modest fixed incomes and have to pay close attention to the checks they write and the groceries they buy every month. The seniors of my State are people that worked very hard all of their lives, as farmers, small business owners, teachers and parents. In old age, all they are hoping for is an opportunity to live out their years with a basic level of comfort and certainty. Unfortunately, as the cost of health care continues to rise at alarming rates, it becomes more and more difficult for seniors to have a sense of security during their retirement years. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, U.S. spending on health care was approximately $1.7 trillion in 2003, almost two and a half times the $696 billion spent in 1990. That $1.7 trillion represents over 15 percent of the gross domestic product. While spending did level off in 2004, according to an analysis by the Center for Health System Change, overall health spending growth outpaced overall economic growth by 2.6 percent in 2004. Increases in health care costs hit the pocketbooks of every American. Recently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS announced that the Medicare Part B premiums, which pay for seniors' doctor visits and other nonhospital services, will rise 13 percent in 2006. The 2006 increase will mark the third year in a row that beneficiaries will be subjected to a rise in their premiums of more than 10 percent. These premium increases will come at the same time that many Medicare beneficiaries will start to pay an additional premium for the Part D prescription drug program. Those premiums will range, averaging from $20 to $35 a month. Both Part D and Part B premiums will be taken from a senior's Social Security check. While seniors can expect a modest increase in their Social Security COLA every year, that increase has not kept up with the pace of increased health care costs and specifically Medicare premium costs. This is unfortunate, and does force many seniors to have to face the harsh reality every year that their fixed income is shrinking as their health costs go up. This October we should learn the Social Security COLA for 2006, and I fear that the combination of a modest increase and increased costs for participating in Medicare Part D are going to be difficult to adjust to for many seniors in South Dakota. This is why I have introduced the Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2005, which will mandate that no more than 25 percent of a senior's COLA be absorbed by the increase in Medicare premiums. This is important legislation that will protect the financial security of many retirees in my home State and across the country. I thank all of the Members who have introduced this bill with me today and urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am joined by several of my colleagues in the Senate to introduce the Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will provide some relief to seniors from rising Medicare premiums, and ensure that their Social Security cost-of-living-adjustments or COLAs are made available for other essential needs such as food and housing. I first thank Senators Cantwell, Leahy, Corzine, Murray, Salazar, Reed and Mikulski in joining me in this effort. Last Congress several colleagues joined Senator Daschle and myself to introduce a similar bill. Representative Herseth in the House has introduced the companion bill today, and I thank her as well for her leadership on this and other important issues to seniors in South Dakota. In my home State, 1 in 6 people are Medicare beneficiaries. That represents 16 percent of our total State population. Many of these individuals live on modest fixed incomes and have to pay close attention to the checks they write and the groceries they buy every month. The seniors of my State are people that worked very hard all of their lives, as farmers, small business owners, teachers and parents. In old age, all they are hoping for is an opportunity to live out their years with a basic level of comfort and certainty. Unfortunately, as the cost of health care continues to rise at alarming rates, it becomes more and more difficult for seniors to have a sense of security during their retirement years. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, U.S. spending on health care was approximately $1.7 trillion in 2003, almost two and a half times the $696 billion spent in 1990. That $1.7 trillion represents over 15 percent of the gross domestic product. While spending did level off in 2004, according to an analysis by the Center for Health System Change, overall health spending growth outpaced overall economic growth by 2.6 percent in 2004. Increases in health care costs hit the pocketbooks of every American. Recently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS announced that the Medicare Part B premiums, which pay for seniors' doctor visits and other nonhospital services, will rise 13 percent in 2006. The 2006 increase will mark the third year in a row that beneficiaries will be subjected to a rise in their premiums of more than 10 percent. These premium increases will come at the same time that many Medicare beneficiaries will start to pay an additional premium for the Part D prescription drug program. Those premiums will range, averaging from $20 to $35 a month. Both Part D and Part B premiums will be taken from a senior's Social Security check. While seniors can expect a modest increase in their Social Security COLA every year, that increase has not kept up with the pace of increased health care costs and specifically Medicare premium costs. This is unfortunate, and does force many seniors to have to face the harsh reality every year that their fixed income is shrinking as their health costs go up. This October we should learn the Social Security COLA for 2006, and I fear that the combination of a modest increase and increased costs for participating in Medicare Part D are going to be difficult to adjust to for many seniors in South Dakota. This is why I have introduced the Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2005, which will mandate that no more than 25 percent of a senior's COLA be absorbed by the increase in Medicare premiums. This is important legislation that will protect the financial security of many retirees in my home State and across the country. I thank all of the Members who have introduced this bill with me today and urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today to discuss the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Judge Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the United States by a 13-to-5 margin. This came after weeks of exhaustive research by the Judiciary Committee and a thorough set of hearings. While I wish the White House would have been more cooperative during the process by releasing a more comprehensive set of documents relating to Judge Roberts' work in the executive branch, I do believe the committee hearings were conducted in a fair and dignified manner, and I do have some understanding of where Judge Roberts' judicial views fall within the political spectrum. After careful review of Judge Roberts' testimony and the information prepared by the Judiciary Committee, I have come to the conclusion that Judge Roberts should be confirmed by the Senate to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is my intention to vote in favor of his confirmation when his nomination comes for a full vote before the Senate later this week. There are few decisions of greater consequence that I will ever be asked to make than whether to approve an individual for a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of our Nation's highest Court. While there is no absolute certainty how Judge Roberts will conduct himself as Chief Justice when he is confirmed, it is my belief that he appears to be a thoughtful and respected jurist who possesses integrity and great legal skills. I see no reason to believe that the nominee is an ideologue or otherwise outside the broad mainstream of contemporary conservative legal thinking. In addition, it is important to note that with the confirmation of Judge Roberts to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, the balance of the Court will be maintained. It is the prerogative of the President to nominate whomever he sees fit to lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary, so it should come as no surprise that President Bush has nominated a conservative jurist such as Judge Roberts for the Supreme Court. While I have voted against President Bush's nominees to the lower Federal courts on a modest number of instances, I have voted roughly 200 times to confirm judicial nominees who I believed were conservative Republicans of great legal skill and who deserved bipartisan respect. With the nomination of Judge Roberts, I am once again prepared to support a qualified, conservative judicial nominee. However, with this vote I also send a message to President Bush that I hope his nominee to fill the vacancy of retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will as well be a person of great legal skill and who has the ability to garner strong bipartisan support. In my home State of South Dakota, we have seen difficult and polarizing political battles over the past few years. I believe South Dakotans as well as all Americans desire a bipartisan centrist approach to government. Our Nation is governed best when it is governed from the broad bipartisan mainstream but not by the extremes of the political far left or far right. I encourage President Bush to nominate someone for Justice O'Connor's seat who will further unite the citizens of our great Nation rather than drive a political wedge between them. The proper legal foundation for America is found in the broad mainstream of contemporary jurisprudence. It is my hope that Judge Roberts will unite Americans and serve the Supreme Court in a fair and prudent and centrist manner. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Gale Reiners for his 35 years of service to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. When he retires later this month, Mr. Reiners will have served his country for almost 40 years, both in the military and through his public service on behalf of our Nation's veterans. During his tenure at the Regional VA Office in Sioux Falls, Gale provided important counsel and advice to veterans, family members, VA officials, veterans' service officers, and congressional members and their staff on a range of issues. Throughout that time, he has witnessed many changes in the VA, and has been diligent in assisting veterans with their questions, needs and issues. He has helped educate all those concerned about the ever-changing scope of the veterans' benefits program. Gale wanted to retire 18 months ago but was persuaded to continue his duties at the VA. At the time he announced his retirement, the VA regional offices in North Dakota and South Dakota were working to combine various veterans' services. Gale's experience and knowledge of those programs proved invaluable during the transition period. Mr. Reiners is a man of passion and integrity who takes his responsibility to South Dakota veterans very seriously. It will be difficult to find someone more knowledgeable than Mr. Reiners on the wide array of benefit and resource programs available to veterans. My staff has worked with Gale and his colleagues at the regional office in Sioux Falls on numerous issues impacting veterans and their families. Gale always addressed each inquiry with professionalism. I commend his dedication and commitment to making sure every veteran's case or question was always handled in a timely manner. The State of South Dakota will miss Gale Reiners' leadership. After 35 years of service, Mr Reiners will be spending more time with his wife Patty, and their 4 children. It is with great honor that I share his impressive accomplishments with my colleagues, and I thank him for his service to this Nation and its veterans.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join Senators Dodd, Durbin, Coleman, Murkowski, and Murray to introduce the ``Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act of 2005.'' I thank them for joining me in introducing this legislation that will improve the surveillance, identification, and prevention of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders or FASD. FASD affects 1 in 100 live births or as many as 40,000 infants each year. This illness affects more people than those impacted by spina bifida, down syndrome, and cerebral palsy combined. In my home State of South Dakota, approximately 31,777 individuals are suspected of having FASD. This statistic is alarming and it is for these reasons why I believe that this bill is so critical in helping fight this disease. During the course of my career, I have met and worked with people whose lives have been deeply affected by this preventable illness. For a person affected by FASD, there can be numerous medical, physical, educational, and financial implications, such as severe learning disabilities, physical abnormalities, costly medical bills, and behavioral impairments. According to the University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center for Disabilities, the lifetime cost for an individual with FASD is over $2 million, and the special educational costs for South Dakota children with FASD can range from $3,781 to $17,056 per year. Additionally, over 60 percent of the individuals in South Dakota who have been diagnosed with FASD lived within a foster care home for some part of their lives. While the foster care parent cares and loves a child, the child will never really know the stability of a permanent family. Furthermore, it is estimated that 60 percent of individuals with FASD will end up in a correctional or mental institution at some point in their lives. Most individuals with FASD will commit their first crime between the ages of 9 and 14, costing the state of South Dakota close to $165.04 per day to house a juvenile offender with FASD, the total amount of all children with FASD in the South Dakota juvenile justice system and special education program is $3,810,240. These unfortunate statistics compel me to join with my colleagues to introduce this bill today. While we have increased awareness about the dangers of consuming alcohol during pregnancy, there is much more that needs to be done to reach the goal of elimination of FASD in this Nation. In my home State of South Dakota, we've had great successes in working on this issue. With the leadership of the health professionals at the USD Center for Disabilities, the Black Hills State University Western Center of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, parents, and teachers, among countless others, we have been able to make some important advancements in addressing FASD. This legislation will bolster those efforts and those of many others across the country that are working hard to prevent FASD and support the children and families who are living with its consequences. This bill would provide much needed support in the areas of research and prevention. This legislation would require the National Institutes of Health to develop a research agenda for FASD including research related to identifying the mechanisms that produce the cognitive and behavioral problems associated with fetal alcohol exposure, and identifying biological markers that indicate fetal alcohol exposure. This bill would also make available Federal grants to community health centers to implement and evaluate programs to increase awareness and identification of FASD in those settings. Participating health centers would be able to make available training to health care providers on identifying and educating women who are at risk for alcohol consumption during pregnancy and also provide training to health care providers on screening children for FASD, among other things. Another provision in this bill creates public awareness and education campaigns in at-risk. areas, in order to further the prevention of this disease. This bill would authorize the development and broadcast of national public service announcements to raise public awareness of the risks associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Again, I am pleased to be introducing this bill. I would also like to take a moment to thank Senator Daschle for his leadership on FASD. His long commitment to combating this illness is ever present in South Dakota and for those who continue to work with those battling FASD every day. Without his hard work and dedication, we would not be as far today in preventing FASD as we are.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join Senators Dodd, Durbin, Coleman, Murkowski, and Murray to introduce the ``Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act of 2005.'' I thank them for joining me in introducing this legislation that will improve the surveillance, identification, and prevention of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders or FASD. FASD affects 1 in 100 live births or as many as 40,000 infants each year. This illness affects more people than those impacted by spina bifida, down syndrome, and cerebral palsy combined. In my home State of South Dakota, approximately 31,777 individuals are suspected of having FASD. This statistic is alarming and it is for these reasons why I believe that this bill is so critical in helping fight this disease. During the course of my career, I have met and worked with people whose lives have been deeply affected by this preventable illness. For a person affected by FASD, there can be numerous medical, physical, educational, and financial implications, such as severe learning disabilities, physical abnormalities, costly medical bills, and behavioral impairments. According to the University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center for Disabilities, the lifetime cost for an individual with FASD is over $2 million, and the special educational costs for South Dakota children with FASD can range from $3,781 to $17,056 per year. Additionally, over 60 percent of the individuals in South Dakota who have been diagnosed with FASD lived within a foster care home for some part of their lives. While the foster care parent cares and loves a child, the child will never really know the stability of a permanent family. Furthermore, it is estimated that 60 percent of individuals with FASD will end up in a correctional or mental institution at some point in their lives. Most individuals with FASD will commit their first crime between the ages of 9 and 14, costing the state of South Dakota close to $165.04 per day to house a juvenile offender with FASD, the total amount of all children with FASD in the South Dakota juvenile justice system and special education program is $3,810,240. These unfortunate statistics compel me to join with my colleagues to introduce this bill today. While we have increased awareness about the dangers of consuming alcohol during pregnancy, there is much more that needs to be done to reach the goal of elimination of FASD in this Nation. In my home State of South Dakota, we've had great successes in working on this issue. With the leadership of the health professionals at the USD Center for Disabilities, the Black Hills State University Western Center of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, parents, and teachers, among countless others, we have been able to make some important advancements in addressing FASD. This legislation will bolster those efforts and those of many others across the country that are working hard to prevent FASD and support the children and families who are living with its consequences. This bill would provide much needed support in the areas of research and prevention. This legislation would require the National Institutes of Health to develop a research agenda for FASD including research related to identifying the mechanisms that produce the cognitive and behavioral problems associated with fetal alcohol exposure, and identifying biological markers that indicate fetal alcohol exposure. This bill would also make available Federal grants to community health centers to implement and evaluate programs to increase awareness and identification of FASD in those settings. Participating health centers would be able to make available training to health care providers on identifying and educating women who are at risk for alcohol consumption during pregnancy and also provide training to health care providers on screening children for FASD, among other things. Another provision in this bill creates public awareness and education campaigns in at-risk. areas, in order to further the prevention of this disease. This bill would authorize the development and broadcast of national public service announcements to raise public awareness of the risks associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Again, I am pleased to be introducing this bill. I would also like to take a moment to thank Senator Daschle for his leadership on FASD. His long commitment to combating this illness is ever present in South Dakota and for those who continue to work with those battling FASD every day. Without his hard work and dedication, we would not be as far today in preventing FASD as we are.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations bill. I applaud the chairman, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, as well as Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl for their diligence on this spending bill and for ensuring that we have arrived at as sound a financial package as was possible, given the pending budget resolution's mandate to cut funds from USDA. At a time of significant budgetary deficits and increasingly tight funding, I worked with my colleagues to maintain a secure package for our producers and rural communities, especially in light of a sorely inadequate proposed USDA budget from the administration. Producers and ranchers in my State of South Dakota and across the Nation would simply prefer a fair price for what they produce at the day's end. USDA programs and Federal funding are crucial for producers, however, when markets are challenging and prices are depressed. The farm bill that was hammered out in 2002 is a contract with rural America, with South Dakota, to ensure adequate safety nets and increased opportunities for rural communities. Numerous Members of Congress, as well as agricultural organizations concerned with the President's proposed budget, have pointed out that the farm bill has already come in at $14 billion under its original projected costs. At a time when producers need the contract negotiated by Congress and signed into law by this President, the administration proposed limiting the benefits promised to producers. We cannot balance the national deficit on the backs of our Nation's producers. I voted to restore the cuts that were made to the agricultural spending package, and I am concerned for the adjustments that will be made to the agricultural spending bill in light of the budget reconciliation instructions advocated by this administration. I am concerned for the impact these cuts will have on our rural communities and our producers. There are several initiatives, however, that I am pleased to see in this spending measure. I would like to touch on a few of those priorities. As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, there are a few South-Dakota-specific items that I am pleased are included in this measure. A few of them include funding for a collaborative four-State effort led by South Dakota State University. These funds will increase opportunities for South Dakota sheep and cattle producers, building a better climate for livestock feeding in our State. There is funding to work at South Dakota State University to integrate pulse crops in crop rotations for South Dakota farmers. By integrating pulse crops into rotations, farmers can increase profits and improve soil quality. There is some funding for the Seed Technology Center at South Dakota State University. Funds will be used to conduct seed technology and biotechnology research to benefit agricultural producers and consumers, enhancing profitability for producers and resulting in better food production. Lastly, there is funding for the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department to continue animal damage control work. The funds allow the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department to continue to meet the growing demands of controlling predatory nuisance and diseased animals. SDSU, a land grant university in Brookings, is significantly impacted by Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and animal health Federal formula funds. SDSU is an institution that makes enormous contributions to our agricultural industry through the research initiatives that it spearheads. The President's proposed cuts on their research centers would have greatly impacted this land grant institution's ability to function in an effective manner. The President's proposed budget would have cut 45 faculty and staff at South Dakota State University, with a 25- to 50- percent reduction in graduate students. These cuts would have resulted in closure of at least one SDSU research farm and at least one SDSU public service laboratory. I worked with my colleagues and with the chairman to ensure that formula funds were, in fact, reinstated at sufficient levels in this bill. I continue to hear from constituents about the viability of the Resource, Conservation, and Development Program, which was funded at only $25 million in the President's proposed fiscal year 2006 budget. The funding level is a substantial reduction from fiscal year 2005 funding at $51 million which was reinstated in the fiscal year 2006 spending package. Rural development initiatives are crucial for creating additional opportunities. The Resource, Conservation, and Development Program contributes tremendously to the economic growth in rural communities, and limiting spending for this program limits economic opportunities. With respect to the animal identification program, $33 million was devoted to this system last year via the omnibus spending bill, and funds were again requested by the Bush administration. Given the size and scale of this program, the projected costs, it is essential to ensure that the Department of Agriculture includes stakeholders, recognizing the concerns that producers have voiced for the implementation of this system. The USDA needs to ensure adequate communication with Congress in consideration of producers and ranchers. I continue to hear, as well, from producers and ranchers who are increasingly concerned with the Department's initiative to consolidate Farm Service Agency service centers. Our 59 offices in South Dakota are essential for providing face-to-face contact with producers. Not every producer owns a computer. Expecting our farmers and ranchers to drive further distances, especially considering the significant cost of fuel, is not reasonable. Implementation of our farm bill programs depends on the ability of our FSA offices to communicate with ranchers and farmers. The administration is doing a severe disservice to our agricultural communities with such a drastic course of action. Lastly, one of the key components I would like to address is the mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling Program signed into law by President Bush in this most recent farm bill. I was the primary author of the mandatory country-of-origin labeling law that was included in the 2002 farm bill. While I was disappointed to see the House include a 1-year delay for meat and meat products for the Country-of-Origin Labeling Program in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations bill, the Senate bill that was reported favorably out of committee contains no such delay. This bill, in fact, contains roughly $3 million for program implementation, which is a modest amount compared to the necessary funding for other initiatives. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling is a program appreciated by both consumers and producers. It is not rocket science and, in fact, would be inexpensive to implement. A recent poll by Public Citizen reflects, as well, that 85 percent of consumers want to know where their food comes from. An additional 74 percent of consumers want this labeling program mandated. I continue to hear from producers and ranchers in support of this program, and any type of further delay would be a severe disservice for this right-to- know initiative for our consumers and a marketing tool for producers, as well as a great boost for our export markets. Again, I thank Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl for their leadership on this agricultural spending package. I thank Chairman Cochran, as well, for his leadership during a time of obviously tight budget constraints. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will make a necessary clarification to current law regarding the application of the federal medical assistance percentage or FMAP. I am joined by Senator Bingaman in introducing this bill. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHCIA, provides for 100 percent Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, applicable to Medicaid services ``received through an Indian Health Service facility.'' This definition has created some issues for state Medicaid programs when applying for the full FMAP rate for services provided to Native Americans that are referred by an Indian Health Service facility to a non-IRS facility. North Dakota and South Dakota have been in the courts with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS over this issue. Since last year when CMS determined that the 100 percent FMAP was not allowable for referred services, North Dakota and South Dakota appealed and prevailed in a lawsuit at the district court level. The Federal appeals court has now reversed the district court's decision and affirmed that those states must repay CMS for the excess payments. While the court sided in favor of CMS, the decision states that there is a lack of clarity in the statute pertaining to how referred patients are covered through the Federal match. CMS disallowed $4 million in payments that South Dakota's Department of Social Services had billed Medicaid through the 100 percent FMAP for Indian patients seen in non-IHS facilities through referrals. At issue is a lack of specificity regarding how far ``received through'' should extend. The most recent court decision even states ``the statutory language is susceptible to multiple interpretations.'' The legislation I am introducing today will clarify the statute and make it completely clear that any services provided under a state Medicaid plan which are referred by any Indian Health Service facility, whether operated by the IHS or by and Indian tribe or tribal organization are to be covered by the 100 percent FMAP amount. Any previous disallowance of a claim or claims by CMS will be reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services within 90 days of enactment of this legislation and payments adjusted accordingly if the claim meets the standards set forth in this bill. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, will be considering the IHCIA this fall. It is my hope that this legislation will be considered within the broader context of the debate on IHCIA. Clearly the Federal government has an obligation to live up to the treaties and responsibilities to our tribes and all Native Americans. I see this legislation as an extension of the obligation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will make a necessary clarification to current law regarding the application of the federal medical assistance percentage or FMAP. I am joined by Senator Bingaman in introducing this bill. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHCIA, provides for 100 percent Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, applicable to Medicaid services ``received through an Indian Health Service facility.'' This definition has created some issues for state Medicaid programs when applying for the full FMAP rate for services provided to Native Americans that are referred by an Indian Health Service facility to a non-IRS facility. North Dakota and South Dakota have been in the courts with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS over this issue. Since last year when CMS determined that the 100 percent FMAP was not allowable for referred services, North Dakota and South Dakota appealed and prevailed in a lawsuit at the district court level. The Federal appeals court has now reversed the district court's decision and affirmed that those states must repay CMS for the excess payments. While the court sided in favor of CMS, the decision states that there is a lack of clarity in the statute pertaining to how referred patients are covered through the Federal match. CMS disallowed $4 million in payments that South Dakota's Department of Social Services had billed Medicaid through the 100 percent FMAP for Indian patients seen in non-IHS facilities through referrals. At issue is a lack of specificity regarding how far ``received through'' should extend. The most recent court decision even states ``the statutory language is susceptible to multiple interpretations.'' The legislation I am introducing today will clarify the statute and make it completely clear that any services provided under a state Medicaid plan which are referred by any Indian Health Service facility, whether operated by the IHS or by and Indian tribe or tribal organization are to be covered by the 100 percent FMAP amount. Any previous disallowance of a claim or claims by CMS will be reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services within 90 days of enactment of this legislation and payments adjusted accordingly if the claim meets the standards set forth in this bill. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, will be considering the IHCIA this fall. It is my hope that this legislation will be considered within the broader context of the debate on IHCIA. Clearly the Federal government has an obligation to live up to the treaties and responsibilities to our tribes and all Native Americans. I see this legislation as an extension of the obligation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the most sweeping comprehensive Energy bill in over a decade. We need a comprehensive set of policies to attack the energy crunch facing Americans on multiple fronts. Electricity systems on the West Coast are strained as electrical transmission lines lack capacity and interconnection to move power throughout regions. The dependence of our economy on foreign sources of energy continues to climb unabated, with close to 60 percent of the oil used to power the economy originating from foreign ports and oil fields. As a Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and as Member of the conference committee charged with hammering out an agreement, I have steered my colleagues in the House and in the Senate to look toward the Heartland as a rich land ready to contribute to our energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 incorporates many of the ideas I have long championed to spring forward South Dakota and the Great Plains as a key future energy producer. First and foremost, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 establishes a robust Renewable Fuel Standard that will lessen imports of foreign sources of energy and encourage the use of clean-burning renewable fuels. Beginning in 2006, the Energy bill establishes a robust renewable fuels standard requiring refiners to blend 4 billion gallons of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. That standard would be increased over the next several years until 2012, when refiners would be required to blend a total of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels. Just in South Dakota alone, over 8000 farm families are invested in ethanol facilities through direct deliveries of corn or in more indirect paths, such as equity shares. The Nation's economy will get a significant and positive boost from enactment of the RFS. There are several other provisions in the bill that bring South Dakota's strength to solving the Nation's energy challenges. Key tax incentives included in the final version of the Energy bill extend the tax credit for small ethanol producers and expand the eligibility of that credit to plants with an annual capacity of up to 60 million gallons is a major victory. The conference report also provides incentives for bio-diesel. Ethanol is not the only renewable fuel that can be produced in the United States soybean-based bio-diesel holds great promise for use in the Nation's fuel supply. We focused also on tapping wind energy resources by extending for 2 additional years the production tax credit for wind energy facilities. The production tax credit is a tool used by developers of wind energy projects, such as the wind energy farm near Highmore, SD. One final tax provision that I feel holds particular promise is the authorization of $800 million in tax credit bonds to finance the construction of renewable energy projects by not-for-profit utilities and rural electric cooperatives. I have heard from dozens of electric cooperative and municipal utilities that want to undertake the construction of wind energy projects. However, until this bill, these non-profit entities were excluded from some of the incentives provided for Investor-Owned Utilities pursuing similar renewable energy projects. Now, rural cooperatives can finance, construct, and operate clean energy projects, such as wind turbines and geo-thermal facilities. The conference report does not include what I believe is an important provision to set benchmarks and targets for producing electricity from renewable energy resources. Like a renewable fuels standard, a renewable portfolio standard would not only reduce the use of fossil fuel sources, but increase economic activity in South Dakota through wind energy and biomass projects. A modest renewable portfolio standard of 5 or 10 percent is achievable and can be done without increasing retail electricity rates. The benefits of balancing traditional energy sources, such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas, with new technologies will reduce air emissions and spur the creation of jobs in developing energy technology sectors. I include clean coal technologies, such as Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle as an emerging clean coal technology that along with wind and geothermal plants hold the promise of producing clean-burning electricity. As Congress and the States and cities move forward on addressing the energy challenges of the 21st Century, policy-makers and industry leaders can lose sight and leave behind developing renewable energy sources. As the Nation and world strain finite fossil fuel resources the need to bring on-line these technologies will only become more acute and practical. I intend to vote for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As a Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am proud of the job we did in fashioning a bill that will make strong strides forward in tackling the disparate parts of energy supply, transmission, and distribution. The bill also holds strong promise for making South Dakota a substantial energy producer of clean energy and renewable fuels. I urge my colleagues to support the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, would the gentleman from New Mexico yield to me for purposes of engaging in a colloquy?

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the gentleman for his clarifications.