Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the budget resolution, I wanted to raise an important issue with my colleagues. The budget for fiscal year 2007 that was proposed by the administration would discontinue all activities of the National Children's Study or NCS. This important study which was authorized as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000, provides for the development and implementation of the largest longitudinal study of children ever conducted in the United States. The goal of the study is to improve the health and well-being of children. The information from this study will be used to determine and affect the major causes of childhood illness such as premature birth, asthma, obesity, preventable injury, autism, developmental delay, mental illness, and learning disorders. These disorders, among many other high-frequency diseases that afflict children, result from the interaction of multiple biologic, genetic, chemical, social and behavioral factors that combine to determine health. Researchers will analyze how these elements interact with each other and what helpful and/or harmful effects they might have on children's health. By studying children through their different phases of growth and development, researchers will be better able to understand the role of these factors on health and disease. The National Children's Study will follow a representative sample of America's children in order to identify causes and develop treatments of specific diseases, and develop population-based intervention strategies to prevent illness and ameliorate the impacts of poverty and substandard environments on children's growth, development, and mental health. This will include approximately 100,000 children from over 100 locations throughout the United States. Since 2000, over 50 million has been spent planning the study. Over 2,500 scientists and community members from across the country have developed a study plan that defines research question, hypotheses, and critical exposure and outcome measures beginning before pregnancy and continuing throughout the life cycle of children. In 2005, the Study designated seven Vanguard pilot centers throughout the United States, including sites in California, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin to begin the study with over 100 additional sites planned across the Nation. It is unfortunate that funding for the study was zeroed out the President's budget and would be extremely shortsighted to put off this study. While there are upfront costs to conduct a study of this size, they are dwarfed by the cost of treating the diseases and conditions it can be expected to address. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NICHD estimates that the major chronic diseases the study will address directly cost American $269 billion per year. If the study were to result in only a 1 percent reduction in those costs, the expense of the entire 20-plus year study could be recouped in a single year. The environment in which our children grow up has changed significantly over the past 50 years, resulting in increases in rates of diseases such as asthma, obesity, and learning and other developmental disabilities. In order to overcome these challenges, we need to invest in the National Children's Study, in addition to other research efforts to improve our understanding of how to prevent disease and improve the environments in which our children live. As a parent of three children, and now a grandparent of three, I know how important it is to provide a healthy environment for our youth. I hope the future will be brighter for future generations, and one way we can make that happen is by finding the answers to many health questions that plague us today. The National Children's Study will be one of the richest information resources available to children's health and development and will form the basis of child health guidance, interventions, and policy for generations to come. It is my hope that this body will do all it can to restore the cuts to the NCS and keep this critical work moving forward, and I will work with my colleagues through the Appropriations Committee to make that happen.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to publicly discuss the importance of the Project Safe Place Program and extend my support for designating the week of March 13, 2006, as ``National Safe Place Week.'' Project Safe Place is a nationally acclaimed youth outreach and education program that provides immediate help and support to youth who are in crisis or at risk for abuse, neglect, or serious family problems. This easily replicated community initiative, which takes place in more than 700 communities around the country, educates thousands of young people every year about dealing with difficult, threatening situations such as child abuse, substance addiction, crime, and family problems. Qualified agencies, trained volunteers, and community partners such as businesses, local government, and law enforcement agencies, work together to sustain Safe Places where youth in crisis can gain immediate, free, and confidential assistance. Safe Place sites, which are designated by distinctive yellow and black Safe Place signs, include youth-friendly businesses, schools, fire stations, libraries, Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCAs, and even buses. S. Res. 390 provides an opportunity to recognize the youth-serving agencies, community partners, counselors, and trained volunteers who work together to sustain safe places for children to turn to. We can show them that they have our support and appreciation and that we value communities actively working together to help young people in crisis. Throughout my tenure as a legislator, I have done my best to support initiatives that work to improve child welfare. Our Nation's children are its greatest asset and our most precious treasure. It is vital that we help them get the right start, nurture their development, and provide for their well being. Quality childcare, nutrition programs, children's health initiatives, and overall poverty reduction measures are critical to ensuring that the children have the tools they need to grow up safe, happy, and healthy. Providing services for at-risk youth is particularly essential because these young men and women often do not have the support that would help them through the transition from childhood to adulthood. These services can help young people continue their education, find jobs, and improve family relationships. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this resolution. This resolution will affirm the work of those individuals and organizations sustaining Safe Places around the country and encourage them to continue making a difference in the lives of at-risk youth.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of Dakota State University. Over the course of its history, DSU has changed names and modified its mission, but throughout it all, it has continuously produced extraordinary graduates. In the modern, high-tech, and competitive environment in which we live, DSU students are equipped with the skills that are essential for success. Originally known as Dakota Normal School, DSU was founded in the community of Madison, which was then part of Dakota Territory. At various times, DSU has been called Eastern State Teacher's College, General Beadle State College, and Dakota State College. In 1989 the school's name changed once again to Dakota State University. Since its inception, DSU has been renowned for giving students the tools they need to become exceptional teachers. More recently, an emphasis on computer and information systems has turned DSU into one of the most technologically-savvy universities in the Nation. DSU regularly appears near the top of Yahoo magazine's list of 100 most wired campuses. With enrollment now at 2,300, DSU continues to attract more students by utilizing distance learning and Internet classes. It has also been a leader in integrating traditional academic disciplines with cutting- edge technology. For its innovation and adaptability, DSU was selected as one of the 10 finalists for the 1987 G. Theodore Mitau Award, a distinction awarded by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. In addition to offering three master's degree programs, DSU offers a doctorate program for science in information systems, which will be available starting in the fall of 2007. In education, technology, and research, DSU is at the forefront of academic and cultural achievement. For 125 years, the university has helped students realize their potential by offering them a quality education and a positive social environment. DSU graduates are well- equipped to succeed in a competitive world, delivering countless benefits to organizations and communities close to home and around the globe. Through commitment to change and transformation, DSU continues to live up to its motto: ``Get on the edge and stay there!''

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like the Record to reflect that I was necessarily absent on Monday March 13, 2006, for rollcall vote No. 37, the confirmation of the nomination of Leo Maury Gordon, of New Jersey, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade. Unfortunately, my flight from South Dakota to Washington, DC was delayed due to bad weather. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted in favor of the nomination.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect that I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 31, the confirmation of Timothy C. Batten, Sr., of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge on Monday, March 6, 2006. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted in favor of the nomination.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the founding of South Dakota State University. In a society where education is an essential asset, SDSU has been providing students with a high-quality, affordable education for generations. Graduates have gone on to be extraordinary community and professional leaders. Founded in 1881 in Brookings, SDSU is South Dakota's only land grant university, and enrollment has now grown to more than 11,000 students. Charged with advancing agricultural and biological sciences, SDSU has constructed six biodiverse experiment stations, 14 interactive technology centers throughout the State, and extension specialists and educators in all 66 counties. SDSU is on the cutting edge of research in such important fields as agriculture, children's health, ethanol, and other renewable fuel sources. SDSU is driven by a core of dedicated professionals. More than 70 percent of the instructors have doctorate or terminal degrees, and nine out of ten classes are taught by full-time professors. There are nearly 200 student clubs and organizations active on campus. In the sporting arena, SDSU recently made the jump to Division I athletics, competing with nationally recognized sports programs. Additionally, SDSU was the first university in the region to offer $4,000 over 4 years to any first-time student who scored 24 or higher on the ACT; this scholarship was termed the ``Jackrabbit Guarantee.'' In the arts, agriculture, sciences, and a score of other areas, SDSU is at the forefront of academic and cultural achievement. For 125 years, the university has helped students realize their potential through quality education and a positive social environment. SDSU students are equipped to succeed in a competitive world, delivering countless benefits to organizations and communities close to home and around the globe. With alumni as accomplished and varied as former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to New England Patriots field goal kicker Adam Vinatieri, SDSU continues to live up to its motto: ``You can go anywhere from here!''

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in February 6, 2006, one of South Dakota's sons made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in Iraq. Army SP Patrick Herried died when an improvised explosive device detonated under the armored military vehicle he was driving. He was a member of the 4th Squadron, 14th Calvary Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team based in Fort Wainwright, AK. Specialist Herried was a 1994 graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls and was fondly remembered by his classmates and teachers. Like many South Dakotans, he was passionate about sports and the outdoors. He was a member of the Roosevelt High School football team and enjoyed skateboarding and mountain biking. Specialist Herried joined the Army in the hopes that it would lead to a better career and even college. His mother, Rita, agreed that the Army had a positive impact on her son. ``He was just a good kid,'' she said. ``Really quiet, but very directed since he's been in the service. He was a good son.'' Patrick's family and friends are in my thoughts and prayers during this trying time. Coming to terms with the loss of any soldier who gives their life in defense of freedom is difficult. While we are awed by Patrick's selfless sacrifice, we are reminded that his life ended much too soon. It is my sincere hope that Patrick's family may take some small measure of comfort knowing our Nation is eternally grateful for his dedicated service to our country. Corporal Jesse Zamora

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, few Americans will recognize MSG Woodrow Wilson Keeble's name, but he was an American hero who served in two wars and who deserves our Nation's most prestigious recognition. I first became aware of Master Sergeant Keeble's bravery in 2002 after being contacted by members of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe who were requesting that his Distinguished Service Cross be upgraded to the Congressional Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is our Nation's highest military honor, and while it is awarded on behalf of Congress, the Department of Defense determines the qualifications and eligibility for the decoration. Master Sergeant Keeble, a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, was an Army veteran of both World War II and the Korean War. For his service, he was awarded the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, the Silver Star, and the Distinguished Service Cross. The last decoration was awarded for his actions near Kumsong, North Korea in October 1951. After many days of fighting in the bitter cold, and though he was wounded, Master Sergeant Keeble single handedly took out three enemy machinegun emplacements. The first hand accounts of his actions that day read like something out of an old Hollywood movie. What he did was real, and his bravery in the face of enemy fire was so remarkable that the men in his company twice submitted recommendations that he receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. In both cases, the recommendation was lost. Like so many veterans, Master Sergeant Keeble returned home after the war a humble man, not interested in pursuing medals or personal honors. He died in 1982, and without the dedicated effort of his family and fellow veterans, most of us would have never had the opportunity to learn about Master Sergeant Keeble. Today, there is an ongoing effort to document his actions through the eyewitness testimony of those veterans who served with him. This is a valuable effort and will help preserve an important part of our Nation's history. After first hearing in 2002 of his heroic actions, I contacted the Secretary of the Army to request a review of Master Sergeant Keeble's case. Based on an affidavit from a member of the company that the original recommendations for the Medal of Honor had been lost, I asked the Secretary to waive the normal 3-year statute of limitations requirement for consideration of the Medal of Honor. Since that time, I have been in close contact with the Army. The recommendation to posthumously award the Medal of Honor to Master Sergeant Keeble has been reviewed by an Army Decorations Board, a Senior Army Decorations Board, and now awaits final action by the Secretary of the Army. At this point, I do not know if the Secretary's decision will be positive or negative, but I remain in contact with his office almost every month as I have for the past 4 years. While all of us who care about this case are frustrated by the amount of time this has taken, the thorough review process is an indication of the importance of the Medal of Honor and the seriousness of this decision. As more people learn about Master Sergeant Keeble's story, more people are joining in the effort to pay tribute to his service. While I do not know what the Army's ultimate decision will be in this case, I can think of no one more deserving of this honor than Master Sergeant Keeble.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise to recognize the Bill Tallman Memorial Women in Science Conference, which is taking place in five communities across South Dakota from March 6th through April 28th. Since 2002, the Women in Science Conference has helped to increase interest in science and technological careers among young women in my State. This year's conference is named in honor of the event's distinguished founder, Bill Tallman, who unexpectedly passed away last October while helping with recovery efforts for victims of the devastating hurricanes that hit the gulf coast region. The cover of a recent Time magazine features a rather amusing photo of a child wearing a lab coat and oversized safety goggles, accompanied by the question, ``Is America Flunking Science?'' Though the image is meant to provoke a laugh, its associated question is anything but humorous. By a number of measures, our country is losing the competitive edge in scientific and technological fields that has for decades been a key driver of our economy. At a national level, one of the factors that undoubtedly contributes to this unfortunate trend is a failure to adequately engage young women in scientific pursuits. It is discouraging to think of how many important discoveries were never made because of our failure to cultivate young female researchers. In my view, the Women in Science Conference in South Dakota is a shining example of what we as a nation need more of to retain and enhance our superiority in science and technology. The conference provides young women in South Dakota with first-hand exposure to women who are leading important scientific work. These distinguished individuals share the rewards and challenges of their work in vivid, concrete terms, and serve as role models for young women who may not have previously considered a career in science. The Women in Science Conference is a product of a partnership between several forward-thinking entities, including the National Weather Service, and several nonprofit and private-sector sponsors. Without their contributions, this valuable event would not be possible. It is a fitting tribute to Bill Tallman that this year's event should be named in his honor. Bill not only recognized the need for an important event like this, he actually made it happen. I know it was one of his proudest achievements, and I congratulate everyone who participates in the Women in Science Conference for helping to carry on his vision. Bill began his career by engaging young minds as a high school math teacher, and then served his country during a 20-year career as a meteorologist with the U.S. Air Force. Next he joined the National Weather Service, and was eventually asked to lead its Aberdeen, SD, office. At a time of national tragedy, few were surprised at Bill's willingness to serve again by leaving home to help those who had suffered through the devastating hurricanes that hit the gulf coast in 2005. Bill Tallman's presence will be sorely missed by all the people whose lives he touched. It is my distinct pleasure to honor his life and legacy by recognizing the Bill Tallman Memorial Women in Science Conference today in the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Specialist Allen Kokesh, Jr. who died on February 7, 2006, from injuries sustained while serving in Iraq. He was a member of Charlie Battery, First Battalion 147th Field Artillery Brigade of Yankton. Specialist Kokesh was one of five South Dakota National Guard members involved in a roadside bomb attack on December 4, 2005, en route to Baghdad. Two soldiers were killed in the immediate aftermath, Sergeant First Class Richard Schild and Staff Sergeant Daniel Cuka. Specialist Kokesh suffered severe wounds, and after being medically evacuated out of Iraq, he was transferred to the Brook Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, TX. Sadly, Specialist Kokesh didn't recover from his wounds and died after developing severe complications. He was a graduate of Yankton High School and is remembered as a scholar athlete. In fact, he was a member of the Yankton High School championship football team that won the 2002 Class 11AA State title. The leadership skills Specialist Kokesh demonstrated during high school were clearly evident when he joined the South Dakota National Guard that same year. He even successfully convinced a fellow classmate, and member of his football team, to join the National Guard the following year. While I am deeply saddened by the loss of any military member serving in defense of our great Nation, the loss of the brave soldiers in the 147th hits close to home. My oldest son, Brooks, served in that unit prior to joining the Army as an enlisted soldier with the 101st Airborne Division. On behalf of my entire family, I extend our heartfelt condolences to Specialist Kokesh's family and friends. Specialist Kokesh's commitment to his fellow members of the South Dakota National Guard, as well as all those who served in uniform with him, is a testament to the strength of his character and the family that instilled in him these values. His dedicated service to our grateful Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, last year, I joined with Senators Enzi, Hagel and Allard to introduce S. 1562, the Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005, legislation to overhaul and reform this country's deposit insurance system. I also wish to thank Senator Ben Nelson for joining us as a cosponsor. I have been closely tied to deposit insurance reform for many years, and I am pleased to see that my strong commitment to this issue will result in the enactment of critical reforms that will provide tangible benefits to financial institutions and their customers. Many of my colleagues on the Banking Committee will recall when I first introduced the Main Street Act back in 2000. We have come a long way since then. The legislation that is now making its way to President Bush's desk is the result of many years of debate and careful deliberation, and has garnered strong bipartisan support along the way. The enactment of this legislation will mark a notable milestone in the history of banking and financial services in this country. Deposit insurance is one of the cornerstones of our country's financial system, and it is especially critical to our Nation's smaller financial institutions and community banks. I am pleased that we are giving the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration the requisite tools to appropriately operate and manage the newly merged deposit insurance fund and assess premiums based on the risks that institutions pose to the system. These reforms were long overdue. It is imperative that the framework of deposit insurance that was established to promote the stability and soundness of our banking system not fall victim to the political process or become static but rather be appropriately reformed and dynamic enough to keep pace with the evolution of that system. The key reforms embodied in the legislation will promote depositor confidence by ensuring that depositors' hard-earned money, from the funds that cover daily living expenses to funds they are saving for retirement and a rainy day, will continue to be insured against risks over which they have no control. By merging the bank insurance fund with the savings association insurance fund, we create a stronger and more diversified fund, and eliminate the possibility for disparities in premiums between banks and thrifts. Implementing a system of risk-based insurance premiums will ensure that banks pay based on the risk they pose to the system, and the FDIC will be able to price insurance premiums accordingly. By increasing the level of coverage for retirement accounts to $250,000, we are adjusting for the real value of coverage, and will promote financial stability for individual retirees. In the current environment, with the uncertainty surrounding Social Security and pension benefits, it is critical that we provide appropriate coverage for the hard-working Americans who have saved for their retirement and long-term needs. I would again like to 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 former FDIC Chairman Don Powell for his commitment to deposit insurance reform and tremendous leadership.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly recognize and honor Carole Pagones on the occasion of her retirement from Main Street Sioux Falls, Inc. Under her extraordinary leadership, Main Street Sioux Falls helped to engineer a dramatic revitalization of the core commercial district in South Dakota's largest city. When Carole took the helm at Main Street Sioux Falls, first-floor vacancies in downtown buildings were at a discouraging 69 percent, and the downtown area was usually deserted after 5 o'clock. Like so many towns and cities, Sioux Falls struggled to maintain the vitality of the area that was once its heart and soul. While some merely lamented this situation, Carole energetically set about changing it. During a 12-year stint as the executive director of Main Street Sioux Falls, and later as the organization's development director, she initiated new events to draw people to the area. She worked to enhance the area's appearance to make it more inviting. The historic preservation of building facades and outdoor dining opportunities are particularly valuable enhancements for the downtown area. And she wielded her personal charm to persuade individual businesses to return to the area. Today, any visitor to downtown Sioux Falls can immediately sense the wonderful results of Carole's efforts. Numerous shops, restaurants, and other businesses now operate in an area that is once again one of the city's most desirable locations. Statistics tell the same story--under Carole's tenure, the vacancy rate that once stood at nearly three quarters of all first-floor downtown properties has been whittled down to a mere 7 percent. Besides restoring the vibrancy of the core downtown area, Carole has also helped Sioux Falls prepare for transformational developments that will expand and improve what we have traditionally considered to be ``downtown''. For example, the Philips-to-the-Falls project will link downtown with the natural amenities of nearby Falls Park. And development is now gaining steam on the ``East Bank'' of the Big Sioux River, opposite the vibrant area on the west side of the river. Though Carol's presence at Main Street Sioux Falls will be sorely missed following her retirement, she leaves the organization well prepared to build upon her remarkable record of success. Fortunately, Sioux Falls and the entire State will continue to benefit from Carole's leadership through her membership on the State's Board of Regents and her ongoing participation in many Main Street Sioux Falls events. On behalf of all South Dakotans, I congratulate Carole Pagones for her outstanding leadership, and I wish her continued successes on all her new challenges and opportunities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as both vice chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee and a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I have been absolutely appalled at the scope and the depth of the villainy associated with the Abramoff lobbying scandal. Inasmuch as Washington recently has become consumed and distracted by the utterly shameful actions of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, I believe that it is essential to understand just how far removed from this scandal Indian tribes are. While a small handful of tribes were represented by Mr. Abramoff and were victimized by his incredibly shady and cynical manipulation of their funds, the vast majority of our Nation's 560 tribes and Alaskan Native villages had nothing to do with him or his practices. Less than half of those tribes operate casinos, and only a tiny proportion of those generate the kind of money that would attract the likes of Mr. Abramoff. Most of the tribes that operate casinos are far from wealthy. The myth that all or most gaming Indian tribes are rolling in dough is wildly incorrect. The tribes in South Dakota and many around the country have large land bases and extensive enrolled memberships. Their casinos are often located in remote, rural areas far away from large numbers of affluent customers and set amidst dire levels of poverty and unemployment. The truth is that most of these casinos provide some badly needed jobs and only a modest amount of revenue. The income that remains after payroll expenses are largely then immediately consumed by a huge backlog of financial needs for education, housing, health and economic development within their reservations. While a few Indian tribes were associated with Mr. Abramoff, the fees they paid were far beyond what most tribes could possibly afford--and in the end, their hired lobbyist abused both their money and their trust. Clearly, this scandal was a lobbying scandal, not a tribal scandal. The reality in too much of Indian Country is the consequence of chronic poverty: shocking levels of disease, inadequate housing, crime, drug and alcohol abuse, low school graduation rates, hunger, and stressed families. These tribes aren't paying Washington lobbyists millions of dollars, but instead are struggling every day to make ends meet and to help restore the dignity of their members. While I did not receive any money from Jack Abramoff, I did receive legal contributions from tribes he represented. I am proud of the support Indian tribes and individual Native Americans have extended to me over the years. We must help restore the American public's faith in good, responsible government and preserve participation by sovereign Indian tribes in our democracy.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr, President, there are few decisions of more lasting and profound consequence that a U.S. Senator must make than the decision whether to vote to confirm a nominee to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Accordingly, I have reviewed the record and the commentary relative to the Samuel Alito nomination with great care and deliberation. The decision on the Alito nomination is more difficult than was the case for now Chief Justice John G. Roberts inasmuch as Judge Alito's long record raises concerns across a broad range of areas. Clearly, he would not have been my pick for the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, I must conclude that Judge Alito possesses a high level of legal skill, is a man of solid personal integrity, and that his views fall within the mainstream of contemporary conservative jurisprudential thinking. At the conclusion of Senate floor debate, I will oppose any effort to filibuster his nomination, and I will vote to confirm Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. While it is not the role of the Senate to ``rubberstamp'' any President's judicial nominations, it is also true that any President's choice deserves due deference. Judge Alito deserves the same deference that Republican Senators accorded the Supreme Court nominees of President Clinton. I am mindful that Justice Ginsberg, a former counsel to the ACLU, was confirmed with 96 Senate votes in her favor. I do not believe that simple political ideology ought to be a deciding factor so long as the nominee's views are not significantly outside the mainstream of American legal thinking. I also believe that the judicial nomination and confirmation process in recent years has become overly politicized to the detriment of the rule of law. I am troubled by Judge Alito's apparent views on matters such as Executive power, his past opposition to the principle of one person, one vote, and his narrow interpretation of certain civil rights laws. Even so, I cannot accept an argument that his views are so radical that the Senate is justified in denying his confirmation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Roland Carroll Barvels who died in Iraq on January 18, 2006. Roland was employed with DynCorp International and was assigned to the Civilian Police Advisory Training Team in Iraq. He was helping to train and equip a 350,000-member Iraqi security force. Sadly, he was killed when a roadside bomb struck his convoy near Basra. Prior to joining DynCorp in November 2005, Barvels answered his Nation's call to duty to protect and defend this great country. After serving for 12 years in the military, he became a police officer. Beginning his career in Minnesota, Barvels eventually served in law enforcement for nearly 20 years including his most recent position with the Aberdeen Police Department. Friends and former co-workers at the Aberdeen Police Department remember Roland with deep admiration. One colleague remarked, ``During his time at the police department, he diligently patrolled the streets of our city providing safety and security to the citizens in our community. Roland possessed an incredible ability to talk to people and [to] make anyone he talked to feel at ease.'' Roland Barvels bravely served our country in so many ways. His wife and children are in the thoughts and prayers of my family during this difficult time. It is my sincere hope that they will take comfort knowing Ronald's long and distinguished career of protecting those most in need is truly admirable, and his dedication to helping others is an inspiration to us all. I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Roland Barvels. He will be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten. Specialist Matthew C. Frantz

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to CPL Brett Lundstrom and his heroic service to our country. As a member of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force based in North Carolina, Corporal Lundstrom was killed in action near Fallujah on January 7, 2006 while serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Brett was born in Vermillion, SD, and he was a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Brett, who was also the proud son of a marine who served his country for 20 years, chose to follow in his father Ed Lundstrom's footsteps. By enlisting in the Marine Corps following the September 11th terrorist attacks, Brett firmly believed he could make a difference. Doyla Lundstrom, Brett's mother, remembers her son as someone who ``loved people, and people loved Brett.'' Brett's friendly personality was infectious and ``he lit up a room when he walked in.'' A true soldier, Ed recalled that Brett believed in his mission. Without question, he was an exemplary soldier and an example for all those with whom he served. Brett's goodwill and service touched the lives of many people. Although his life was cut short, he continues to inspire all those who knew him. Our Nation owes him a debt of gratitude, and the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to our country. Mr. President, I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my deepest sympathy to the family of CPL Brett Lundstrom. He will be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have a question for the chairman and ranking democrat of the Finance Committee with respect to one special kind of retirement plan that is defined in Internal Revenue Code section 664(g) and involves qualified gratuitous transfers of employer securities. That section of the code was added in 1997 and later amended in 2001. It provides certain rules and requirements for a business owner who wants to bequeath his company to its employees through the company retirement plan. One of the limitations in section 664(g) is that the maximum allocation that would be permitted to any participant each year is the lesser of $30,000 or 25 percent of compensation. That limitation, which is contained in code section 664(g)(7) was intended to ensure for an orderly and fair allocation of shares received by a plan in a gratuitous transfer from a charitable remainder trust. A question has been raised with me as to the appropriate timing of valuation of the stock that is transferred to the accounts of participants for purposes of the unique section 664(g)(7) limitation. Should the stock be valued at the time the shares are transferred to the plan or on the date the shares are allocated to the accounts of participants? It is my understanding, that the clear intent of the limitation of section 664(g)(7) was to measure the value of the stock on the date it is actually allocated to the account of the participant. Any other reading could result in potential circumvention of the statutory limitation if the value of the stock were to increase during the period between the actual transfer of the stock to the plan and the subsequent allocation to the account of the participant. Put differently, when the statute says no participant shall receive more than the lesser of $30,000 or 25 percent of compensation each year, that is precisely what was intended. To be clear, this is a unique rule that is specific to section 664(g). It has no bearing on any other rules involving plans, including employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), that are not described in section 664(g).

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I express my concerns about the fiscal year 2006 Budget Reconciliation Conference Report currently pending in the Senate. I intend to vote against the conference report because I believe it sets the wrong budget priorities for our nation. This omnibus spending reduction bill mandates a five-year spending cut of $39.7 billion. The vast majority of the cuts enacted as a consequence of this conference report will impact poor and middle-class Americans. While the budget reconciliation pulls out all the stops to protect the interests of insurance companies and drug manufacturers, the package makes several changes to the Medicaid program that will have a devastating impact on the health of the most vulnerable individuals in South Dakota. Low-income Medicaid recipients will see cuts in health coverage while at the same time facing increased cost-sharing through the program. Increased copayments and premiums for our poorest citizens will likely mean that many individuals will forgo necessary care until emergency services are needed, costing our health system a great deal more in the long run. The bill also establishes very strict asset rules for seniors applying for Medicaid coverage for their nursing home care. While some adjustments to the asset tests are needed, this package goes too far and will negatively impact many average to low income earners in their final years. Finally, the payment methodology changes proposed for pharmacies are shortsighted and will reduce access to Medicaid coverage in the future. The conference package reduces reimbursements paid to pharmacies for generic drugs by approximately 40 percent by 2007. Under those circumstances, community pharmacies will have a hard time making ends meet and will lose the incentive to provide this service entirely. I have recently received a letter signed by 142 national organizations expressing their concerns about the Medicaid provisions in this conference report. They understand the devastating impact these health care cuts will have on the poor and elderly. The conference report also slashes funding for vital farm programs. In fact, commodity programs face the brunt of the agriculture cuts in the bill, and will be reduced by $1.7 billion over the next 5 years. In addition, the conference report cuts $934 million from conservation programs, $620 million from research, and $400 million from rural development programs. The farm bill that was signed into law by President Bush represented a contract with rural America. Farmers have based their own financial decisions on the provisions and funding that were promised in that bill. To now make changes to the farm bill by enacting steep cuts to commodity and conservation programs undermines our family farmers and ranchers and demonstrates the administration's lack of commitment to rural economic development. This conference report also contains $12.7 billion in cuts to the federal student loan program. Unfortunately, this marks the largest cut to student financial aid programs in history. While the legislation does contain funding for the creation of the new Academic Competitiveness Grants and the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants, National SMART Grants, the Senate-passed budget reconciliation legislation contained more than $8 billion in new need-based assistance to supplement Pell Grants. The Academic Competitiveness Grants Program would limit aid to a small subset of financially eligible students that completed a rigorous secondary school program to be defined by the Secretary of Education. I support students taking a rigorous high school curriculum, but this would be the first time the Federal Government links need-based financial aid to the academic curriculum available to a student. The National SMART Grants Program would limit aid to only those students choosing to major in math, science, technology, engineering, computer science, or high-need foreign language. While we all want more students to study math and sciences, we also need to find additional need-based aid for students that choose other important academic fields. Finally, this will be the fourth year in a row that Congress has failed to increase the maximum Pell Grant award from $4,050. The Republican leadership has argued that these cuts are a necessary step toward restoring fiscal discipline. However, when these cuts are paired with the tax reconciliation bill, they will actually cause an increase in the national debt. Leaders in Congress have made it clear that after the completion of the omnibus spending bill, Congress will consider the extension of investment tax breaks geared disproportionately toward the super rich with incomes in excess of $200,000 annually. Correspondingly, the estimated cost from these tax cuts to the Treasury and the American public far outweigh the savings forecast from the omnibus spending bill. A key intent of the reconciliation process is to reign in the governmental spending or to move through the Congress changes to mandatory domestic programs. The majority intends to pervert this process by using the omnibus spending bill as a device to free up room in the budget for costly tax cuts primarily geared toward the wealthiest two percent of taxpayers. The end result is that future generations will be saddled with higher borrowing costs and lower economic growth in order to pay off the national debt charges run up by the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts pushed by this Congress. This vote is not for fiscal discipline and reduced deficits. Instead, those pushing through today's spending cut bill are doing so to make room for further tax cuts and billions more to the national debt. Mr. President, I recognize we must get our fiscal house in order. However, I do not believe that budget cuts should come 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. The priorities set forth in this conference report are wrong; I will vote against the conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Jon Corzine, who is leaving the Senate and will be sworn in as the Governor of New Jersey on January 17, 2006. I have greatly appreciated working with Senator Corzine during his time in the Senate. We have served together on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the Budget Committee. His depth of knowledge and experience will be missed on these committees, and in the Senate as a whole. While Senator Corzine will be continuing in public service, he has already had a long and distinguished career. After serving in the Marine Corps, he received an MBA from the University of Chicago and began working in the private sector, rising to be the co-chief executive officer at Goldman Sachs. He decided to enter public service and was elected to the Senate in 2000 where he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of New Jersey. In November, Senator Corzine was elected to be Governor of New Jersey and I am confident he will continue his outstanding public service work in this new position. I am very pleased that while he served in the Senate, Senator Corzine had the opportunity to visit my home State of South Dakota in 2002 during my re-election campaign. The trip gave him the opportunity to experience the beauty and friendliness of South Dakota, and I know that those who met Senator Corzine were very impressed with him and pleased that he had visited the State. Once again, I would like to thank Senator Corzine for his extraordinary service in the Senate and wish him the very best on his new challenges and opportunities as Governor of New Jersey.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of SSG Dan Cuka of Yankton, SD. Staff Sergeant Cuka, a member of the South Dakota National Guard, was killed on December 4, 2005, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Staff Sergeant Cuka was assigned to Yankton's Charlie Battery, 1st Battallion, 147th Field Artillery Unit. Charlie Battery was mobilized in July 2005 and deployed to the Middle East in October 2005. Staff Sergeant Cuka died when multiple improvised explosive devices detonated near his military vehicle in Baghdad, Iraq. Dan is survived by his wife of 5 years, Melissa, and their children, Abby and Alex. Melissa remembers him as, ``living each day of his life the way he chose based on devotion to his family and his passion for the military. We all believe Dan died doing what he strongly believed in.'' He was regarded as taking his military duty very seriously, and his leadership in his battalion reflected that. Dan was a devoted father who would do anything for his kids according to Melissa, ``It wasn't just as a provider. He would get on the floor and play with them. He would take them places and have a good time with them.'' The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Dan's good will and service. Although he did not live to see his dreams realized, he continues to inspire all those who knew him. Our Nation and South Dakota are far better places because of his life, and the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to our country. Mr. President, I express my sympathies to the family and friends of Staff Sergeant Cuka. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten. Staff Sergeant First Class Schild Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of SFC Richard Schild of Tabor, SD. He was killed on December 4, 2005, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sergeant First Class Schild was assigned to Yankton's Charlie Battery, 1st Battallion, 147th Field Artillery Unit. Charlie Battery was mobilized in July 2005 and deployed to the Middle East in October 2005. Sergeant First Class Schild died when multiple improvised explosive devices detonated near his military vehicle in Baghdad, Iraq. Richard is survived by his wife of 14 years, Kayleen, and their children, Keely and Koby. His brother, SSG Brooks Schild, described him by saying, ``Rich would always put others ahead of himself, even when he was in a dangerous situation.'' According to his brother, Richard had earned the respect and admiration of his fellow soldiers, not merely because of his rank, but because of who he was as a person. He served with great distinction and received numerous accolades for his service. Richard lived life to the fullest and was committed to his family, his Nation, and his community. It was his incredible dedication to helping others that will serve as his greatest legacy. All Americans owe Richard, and the other soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service. Mr. President, I express my sympathies to the family and friends of SFC Richard Schild. I believe the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten. aviation warfare systems operator two john n. kaye, iii

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this past year, the world has witnessed multiple natural disasters including the tsunami in South Asia and Hurricane Katrina in the gulf coast. Most recently, the devastating earthquake that struck northern Pakistan in early October has been equally catastrophic. More than 73,000 people were killed in the immediate aftermath, while tens of thousands more were wounded. Just as troubling, millions more have been left homeless having lost their life's possessions in this tragic event. As Pakistan approaches the bitter winter months, many are still without adequate shelter. The United Nations estimates that at least 350,000 will remain in the mountainous regions of Pakistan through the winter and will require sufficient food and materials to winterize their tents in order to survive. Exacerbating the situation is the recent cancellation of helicopter sorties that deliver humanitarian relief due to deteriorating weather conditions. In addition, UNICEF is conducting a massive immunization campaign to vaccinate individuals from the measles following an outbreak at a camp outside of Muzaffarabad in early December. For all these reasons, it imperative that countries honor their commitments to this ravaged country to ensure humanitarian relief is provided to the victims of this tragedy. To date, the international community and private industries have pledged aid for relief an reconstruction, and the United States has led the effort. After recognizing that our original pledge of $50 million would be inadequate to assist the victims, the United States substantially increased the amount of aid to Pakistan by pledging a total of $510 million. In addition, the United States has provided rescue teams and aircraft to assist in locating victims in remote areas. The U.S. military has helped deliver humanitarian supplies, as well as evacuating casualties from the region. Currently a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, MASH, unit has been established in the most devastated parts of the country to perform urgent surgery and attend to less critical patients. While I applaud these efforts, we should remember that Pakistan has been a critical ally in the war on terror. Unfortunately, our image in the Muslim world has been distorted though propaganda and misperceptions of America's intent in the Middle East. Humanitarian aid can assist in dispelling these myths and will clearly demonstrate that the American people are deeply compassionate toward all those in need. With the upcoming winter months, it will be vital that the international community continue to honor the commitments it has made to Pakistan. I believe that the United States should lead these efforts. We have a moral obligation to reach out and assist those who are so desperately in need, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure the victims of this earthquake receive adequate humanitarian assistance.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this week the Senate Banking Committee reported out S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 which will extend for 2 years the terrorism risk insurance program that is due to expire on December 31. I suspect the insurance industry is breathing a collective sigh of relief that this bill has finally passed in the Senate. All Americans concerned about economic growth should also feel some relief. This bill represents a compromise between the very strong views of the administration and the approach originally set forth in the bill as introduced. I must commend Senators Dodd and Bennett and their staffs for their tireless work on this legislation, as well as Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes. I understand that getting to this point was not without its challenges. Nevertheless, we arrived at a bipartisan compromise. There are still some who believe that we do not need a terrorism insurance program with a Federal backstop; that the capacity of the industry to provide this insurance has improved, and the program has achieved its goals. Frankly, I am not convinced. Because of the random and unpredictable nature of terrorism, I am not yet convinced that the private sector can adequately or accurately assess terrorism risk in the absence of a Federal backstop. It has been 4 years since the September 11 attacks that prompted the passage of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. And while we have been fortunate here in the United States that no events have triggered the use of this Federal backstop, the bombings in London this summer, the Madrid train bombing last year, the nightclub bombing in Bali in 2002, and the alarming increase in suicide bombers in the Middle East serve as painful reminders of the reality of the ongoing war on terror, and the fact that attacks can happen anywhere at anytime. Prior to September 11, the risk of terrorism was not a factor when insurers wrote policies. However, in the post-9/11 environment, the availability of affordable insurance for terrorism risks has become a necessity. The war on terror involves protecting our homeland and protecting our citizens. In light of the current environment, it would be both unrealistic and premature to conclude that a Federal backstop is no longer necessary. I think it was irresponsible for the administration to suggest that it is now appropriate to shift the burden of insuring against the risk of terrorist attacks solely to the private insurance market. We accepted the recommendations of the administration by dropping several lines of insurance from the program. However, there is one very critical line that has never been included, and one that I am disappointed is not part of this compromise bill, and that is group life. As I have said on numerous occasions, it is critical that we create conditions that permit the private insurance markets to continue to offer group life insurance coverage to employees at high risk of attack. Since 2002, I have fought to include group life insurance in the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. I was disappointed, at that time, that the Bush administration chose to focus its efforts on insuring buildings against terrorism but was dismissive of the critical role that group life insurance plays for tens of thousands of families at the highest risk of terrorist attack. We saw vividly, post-9/11, the suffering of so many families, and while the most immediate grieving was for the loss of human life, the harsh reality is that many families lost their livelihood as well. In a time of loss, a life insurance policy can mean the difference between having to sell the family home, pulling the kids out of college, or even, in some cases, having enough money to put food on the table. Moreover, the lack of affordable reinsurance for group life products calls into question the administration's position that TRIA is crowding out innovation that would otherwise enable the industry to offer insurance for terrorism risk without a governmental backstop. Reinsurance has essentially evaporated for the group life sector, which Treasury specifically chose not to include in the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, and thus was not hindered in its pursuit of market innovations. We ought to be working to create a marketplace where reinsurance can reemerge for group life products, rather than jeopardize the TRIA-facilitated appearance of reinsurance for products, like workers compensation, which are comparable to group life. I certainly appreciate that innovations within the insurance industry may be part of the long-term solution, and we certainly must facilitate that as we go forward. The time has come for Congress to review the current regulatory landscape of the insurance industry to ensure that it does not unnecessarily restrict innovation. I believe that this legislation is consistent with that objective--extending TRIA for a period of time sufficient for Congress to begin looking at modernizing the regulatory scheme for insurance while it also reviews longer term solutions to the challenge of insuring against acts of terror. I am pleased that this legislation requires the Presidential Working Group to do a study on the long-term viability and affordability of terrorism insurance and the affordability of inclusion of group life insurance. I look forward to reviewing the Presidential Working Group's recommendations, and it is my hope that it recommends inclusion of group life in the program. Additionally, I am satisfied with the ``make available'' provisions in this bill. At the end of the day, this program is not about the profits of the insurance industry; it is about the ability of American businesses to have access to insurance protection. That should be the very minimum required of an industry that enjoys the type of protection we have provided. Estimating the likelihood of attacks or the extent of loss is difficult, if not impossible. Now is not the time for the administration or Congress to leave the private insurers to go it alone. I am pleased that last night the Senate passed this important legislation. Doing nothing would not have been acceptable.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge National Adoption Day on November 19, 2005. With over 118,000 children available for adoption out of the U.S. foster care system, I think it is crucial to celebrate those lawyers, social workers, officials, and, most importantly, parents who help get many children out of foster homes into adoptive families. National Adoption Day was started in 2000 by the Alliance for Children's Rights, the Freddie Mac Foundation, and the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption and helped complete foster care adoptions in nine jurisdictions. National Adoption Day continued to grow and in 2001 completed adoptions in 17 jurisdictions. In 2002, the Casey Family Services, Children's Action Network, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute and Target became National Adoption Day partners and helped 34 cities across the country finalize 1,350 adoptions. In 2003, 3,100 adoptions were completed. National Adoption Day 2004 was the biggest celebration to date, finalizing the adoptions of more than 3,400 children from foster care. It seems quite appropriate that as we celebrate Thanksgiving, we also celebrate the formation of new families through adoption. As a member of the bipartisan Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I am committed to assisting children in the United States to find stable, loving and permanent homes. Additionally, I support the goals of National Adoption Day to encourage others to adopt children from foster care, to build stronger ties between local adoption agencies, courts, and adoption advocacy organizations, and to continue to research and learn more about families wanting to adopt and the children waiting to be adopted. I am also proud that Members of the Senate continue to support ways to make adoption easier and more affordable. Since the cost of adoption can be very high, we ought to do what we can to lessen this initial burden for the exceptional people who provide caring homes for children. Adoption proceedings and legal fees for some domestic adoptions can cost more than $40,000. To ease some of this burden, Congress adopted a $10,000 tax credit for adoption expenses. If we ask individuals to care for and adopt children, we must provide some relief from the financial burdens associated with that care. The adoption tax credit is an effective vehicle to provide this relief. The commitment of adoptive parents in South Dakota and throughout our country to provide children with safe, permanent, and loving homes will, of course, have a positive impact on their lives. As we celebrate National Adoption Day on November 19, 2005, I call on my colleagues to continue supporting efforts to make adoption easier for parents, children and other important players in the adoption process.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask to address the body for 5 minutes on this issue.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today as vice chair of the Ethics Committee to discuss the resolution being considered by the Senate. I say at the outset that I have great respect for my colleague, Senator Coburn. The resolution before us seeks to provide a special carve-out for the practice of medicine, and medicine only, from the current Senate rules limiting outside compensation and income. The Senate rules that govern this issue and their interpretation do not come at the whim of the Senate Rules or Senate Ethics Committees, but from a longstanding determination and precedent of this body. In fact, this has been a part of the Senate rules since 1977, when the original Senate Code of Conduct was adopted. The committee that was established to develop the Senate Code of Conduct was known as the Nelson Committee, after its chairman, Senator Gaylord Nelson, and specifically addressed the restrictions on Senators practicing fiduciary professions in its report by saying: This provision reflects the committee's belief that the practice of a profession usually requires substantial amounts of personal involvement and time, and may also present conflicts of interest or in some cases the appearance of such conflicts. During the Senate debate in 1977 on these rules, Senator Strom Thurmond delivered a strong statement on the purpose and the intent behind including the prohibition on Members of the Senate from continuing to practice and being compensated for outside professional work. He said: The job of a U.S. Senator is a full-time job, and if one is able to find time to render professional services for compensation, I seriously question his ability to render the commensurate service necessary to be a full-time Senator. At that time, the Nelson Committee and the Senate recognized the pitfalls of allowing Members to receive income or compensation for outside professional work. Those pitfalls still exist today. First, the proposal before the Senate would create a net profit standard in conjunction with medical professionals accepting outside compensation. It is my understanding this would allow physicians to accept payments for services from such sources as individuals, insurance companies, or even Medicare and Medicaid, up to the point at which all of their expenses have been covered. A major concern I have about this proposal is it does not contain any direction as to how compliance with this net profit standard would be monitored to ensure that the instant all expenses were covered, the compensation would be ended. Without a clear ability to monitor compliance, the potential for violations, abuse of the system, or even mistakes that would affect the credibility of this Senate is very high. I question whether the Ethics Committee has, or in fact whether it should have, the resources that would be required to properly analyze the complex accounting needed to ensure compliance with this net profit standard. Furthermore, at this time I simply do not believe the Senate should vote in favor of any proposal that would loosen our ethical boundaries and increase the opportunities for ethical violations. The resolution also does not provide any limitations on the outside practice of medicine. It appears that under this resolution, a Senator could spend a majority, if not all, of his or her time practicing medicine, to the detriment of the Senate, and without any recourse for the Senate. As stated before, the Senate has determined our responsibilities are full-time. If the proposal before us is adopted, it will set up a conflict between constituents and a Senator's outside medical responsibilities for which he or she is being compensated. The question has been raised about whether this carve-out ought to apply only to the medical profession. The fact is there are other professionals in this body of great skill--lawyers, engineers, business people, people of other professions. The fact is each and every one of them could practice their professions outside their service in the Senate, and without that practice, their skills, indeed, do erode as well. There are lawyers here whose membership in the bar is retained but whose skills certainly do erode over time. That is true of every profession. There is no profession, I believe, that is immune from or more prone to profit motives, and I do not think that any profession can be singled out in that regard. I am not completely insensitive to the motivations behind the resolution, but I remind my colleagues that there is nothing in the Senate Rules that forbids a physician in the Senate from practicing medicine, as the Senate leader, Senator Frist, oftentimes does. The argument here is not that doctors who serve in the Senate should never be allowed to practice medicine. The rules allow doctors serving in the Senate to practice medicine for free. The argument is that no Senator should practice a profession of any kind and receive outside compensation, no matter what the expenses of that particular profession might be. If there is going to be a change, then the proper place for that change is through the Rules Committee and the ordinary process where hearings can be held and thoughtful deliberation can be had, and the parliamentary rules of this body would apply. It would be a mistake and an unfortunate precedent for this body to permit an end run around the Rules Committee in order to avoid the supermajority vote that ordinarily would be required to change the rules during the middle of a congressional session. I do not believe we should take a step today to weaken the Senate rules, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this resolution. I yield the floor.