Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate on June 20, June 21, and for a portion of today's session in order to attend a hearing of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in Rapid City, SD. I missed six votes, and I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted in each instance. I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 142, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of John R. Bolton, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States to the United Nations. I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 143, Senate amendment No. 783, a Nelson of Florida amendment to H.R. 6 to strike the section providing for a comprehensive inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas resources. I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 144, Senate amendment No. 817, a Hagel amendment to H.R. 6 to provide for the conduct of activities that promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the United States and in developing countries and to provide credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems in the United States. I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 145, Senate amendment No. 799, a Voinovich amendment to H.R. 6 to make grants and loans to States and other organizations to strengthen the economy, public health, and environment of the United States by reducing emissions from diesel engines. I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 146, the motion to table the Feinstein amendment No. 841 to H.R. 6 to prohibit the Commission from approving an application for the authorization of the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of facilities located onshore or in State waters for the import of natural gas from a foreign country or the export of natural gas to a foreign country without the approval of the Governor of the State in which the facility would be located. I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 147, the motion to table the Schumer amendment No. 805 to H.R. 6 to express the sense of the Senate regarding management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower the burden of gasoline prices on the economy of the United States and circumvent the efforts of OPEC to reap windfall profits.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the city of Arlington, SD. On July 29, 2005, citizens of Arlington will celebrate their city's proud past and look forward to a promising future. Located near the eastern border of South Dakota in Kingsbury County, Arlington is only 35 miles from the Minnesota line. Like many towns in South Dakota, Arlington got its start with help from the railroad in 1880. In fact, the town's original name, Nordlund, was given by the Dakota Central Railroad, inspired by the large number of Scandinavians who settled in the area. In 1884, however, the Western Town Lot Company objected and the county commissioner renamed the town Denver. That title was also short lived, as one year later, in 1885, the local post office insisted on again renaming the community. This time, the Dakota Central Railroad chose Arlington, and 120 years later, its name endures. Arlington's spirited residents live in the midst of some of South Dakota's most fertile farmland, as this rural community is a dependable corn producer. Additionally, Arlington's 1,000 residents have come to count on The Sun, founded in 1885, for quality and accurate reporting on local events. In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, Arlington has proven its ability to flourish and serve farmers and ranchers throughout the region. Arlington's proud residents celebrate its 125th anniversary on July 29, 2005, and it is with great pleasure that I share with my colleagues the achievements of this great community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and publicly recognize the town of Egan, South Dakota as it celebrates its 125th anniversary on July 4, 2005. It is at this time that I would like to draw to my colleagues' attention the achievements and history of this charming town on the prairie. Egan stands as an enduring tribute to all those who had the courage to pursue their greatest dreams on the plains of South Dakota. Egan is a small community nestled amongst the fertile farmland of southeastern South Dakota. It was founded in 1880 to service the Milwaukee Railroad as it made its way west through Dakota Territory. The town was first incorporated by Joe Enoe, Alfred Brown, and John Hobart. Rectangular in shape, Egan grew quickly and soon included seven square miles of Moody County, thereby encompassing a new mill on the Big Sioux River and the small village of Roscoe--which was, by the way, a different community than the Roscoe, SD that exists in Edmunds County today. Roscoe had been started four years earlier, in 1876, when Decatour D. Bidwell chose the spot on the Big Sioux River for his new mill. Roscoe also served as a stopping point for the numerous travelers who used a nearby river crossing, one of the best fords for many miles. Soon the town of Roscoe boasted two restaurants, a store, a saloon, a newspaper, and the first courthouse in Moody County. However, due to Egan's increasing growth and popularity, in addition to the railroad's new sturdy and reliable bridges that phased out Roscoe's river crossing, all that remains of the pioneer village of Roscoe is a small pasture scattered with pieces of millstone. The Baptist and Methodist Episcopal churches were the first to be built in the town of Egan. These two churches were constructed by all members of the community, regardless of faith or profession, in response to a promise made by Mr. Egan, the prominent railroad official for whom the city is named. Mr. Egan promised a church bell to the first church with a belfry equipped to receive it. The Baptist Church was the first completed, and therefore received the much-desired bell. While the bell now hangs in the tower of the Methodist Church, it is still used to call worshippers to services every Sunday morning. Egan experienced a great deal of economic prosperity in the early twentieth century. In 1904, Egan boasted nearly seven hundred people and more than fifty prosperous business enterprises. These included a state bank, three hotels, two hardware stores, an implement house, four grain elevators, six general stores, a flourishing mill, two lumber yards, two doctors, a newspaper, a furniture store, and an opera house. The curtailment of the railroad, better roads providing alternate routes that sidestepped Egan, and the rise of more modern methods of transportation fostered travel to larger towns in the state, thus making it more difficult for businesses in Egan to draw in customers. Nevertheless, technology and progress can never undermine the firm resolve and remarkable work ethic that is characteristic of the great people of this country's heartland. The vision of those individuals who had the courage to make a home for themselves on the plains of the Dakotas serves as inspiration to all those who believe in the honest pursuit of their dreams. On July 4, 2005, the 257 proud residents of Egan will celebrate their vibrant history and the legacy of the pioneer spirit with the 125th anniversary of the city's founding.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the city of Waubay, South Dakota. On July 2, 2005, Waubay citizens look back on their city's proud past and look forward to a promising future. Platted on November 16, 1880, the community was first known as Station #50 until later that year, when crew members of the Milwaukee Railroad Company named it Blue Lake. It was not until 1885 that the town took on its current name of Waubay, meaning ``Nesting place of the birds,'' given by the Sioux Indians. One hundred twenty five years later, Waubay thrives as the oldest city in Day County. Waubay, like many South Dakota towns and communities, got its start with the help of the railroad. Although the rail tracks that pass through the town ran as far as Bristol and were ready for travel in 1880, the first train to ever pass through Waubay didn't arrive until May, 1881. A severe blizzard hit the region in October of 1880, and the snow and subsequent run-off in the spring rendered the rail line impassable. The town, which was incorporated as a village in 1894 and as a city in 1920, grew rapidly in its early years. Station #50 began with only 50 residents, yet Waubay swelled to a population of 1,007 in 1925; currently, about 625 South Dakotans live in the town. By the early 1900s, the community boasted a general store, a lumber yard, a corner drug store, a livery barn, a railroad depot, several coal sheds, the Waubay Clipper, The Advocate, a power company, several banks, a creamery, several grain elevators, a school, and many stores. In May of 1890, the Waubay Clipper, owned by Charles W. Stafford and his son, published the paper's first issue. It was the only newspaper in town for two decades, until The Advocate began under the direction of Major Maynard in 1910. However, in December 1917, the Clipper purchased The Advocate and merged the two, again returning the Clipper's status as Waubay's sole news publication. Despite management turnover over the years, Waubay residents still rely on the Clipper for quality and accurate reporting on local events 115 years later. Prior to 1910, most Waubay residents lacked the convenience of electricity. However, in 1884, officials partitioned the town into wards, which Roy Thompson used to his advantage in 1900 when he devised a lighting system utilizing windmill power. In 1910, Dr. Park Jenkins, a prominent Waubay resident, established an electricity plant in back of the Yellowstone Garage. Although the plant was quite successful during the early portion of the 20th century, the Ottertail Power Company ultimately became the primary service provider for Waubay, and still maintains that role to this day. Waubay was home to South Dakota's State Board of Health in the early 1900s. Headed by Dr. Park Jenkins, who in 1913 was appointed Board Superintendent, the office employed 22 people at its peak. The board moved to Pierre, SD in 1933. Today, Waubay is a multicultural community that includes many residents of Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, as well as those of European descent. It is also home to Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Waubay's location near several area lakes makes it a prime location for fishermen. Blue Dog State Fish Hatchery is just one mile north of Waubay, producing walleyes, northerns, perch, bass, bluegills, crappies, and trout. In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, Waubay's innovative and resourceful residents have proven their ability to thrive as a community. It is with great pleasure that it share with my colleagues the admirable, pioneer spirit still present in these wonderful South Dakotans, as they celebrate Waubay's 125th anniversary on July 2, 2005.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the city of Salem, SD. I would like to recognize this outstanding prairie community as an example of the extraordinary work ethic and perseverance of the remarkable people all across the state of South Dakota. Salem, the county seat of McCook County in southeastern South Dakota, was named by Oliver S. Pendar. Pendar, the town's first postmaster, named the town for his former home of Salem, Massachusetts. Pendar first moved to McCook County in 1878 and eventually settled in Salem in 1880. Platted in July of that year, Salem's location was chosen by the railroad companies, as it provided an excellent spot for trains to stop and reload supplies as they made their way west. The town was incorporated in 1885, which is the same year residents chose W.D. Roberts as Salem's first mayor. Early Salem experienced a great deal of economic prosperity during the peak railroad years of the late nineteenth century. The town grew rapidly in its first decade and boasted a number of businesses, including several hotels, a lumberyard, a furniture store, several banks, real estate brokers, livery barns, and other services vital to a growing community on the frontier. At its zenith, Salem was home to five fine hotels, including the Lewis House, the Commercial Hotel, the Irish House of Parliament, the Depot Hotel, and the Lucerne, all of which flourished during the railroad years. Sadly, many of these hotels have come and gone, but their legacy remains. Salem's first school, a two-story frame building located on the site of the present high school, was built by J.E. Miller in 1881 and opened in 1882. The first floor consisted of county administrative offices and classrooms. The building's second floor accommodated church services, a courthouse, and a public hall. Since its founding, Salem has been home to three newspapers, the first of which was the Pioneer Register, started by Mr. Jonas Rutan in 1880. In 1883, Mr. C.F.M. Schenckler established Salem's second paper, the McCook County News, which Mr. J.E. Patten purchased three years later and renamed the Salem Special. This semi-weekly paper, published on Wednesdays and Saturdays, kept the community informed of important events in the area. Through the years, the residents of Salem have demonstrated great flexibility and perseverance in their ability to flourish despite overwhelming heartbreak. Since Salem's founding in the late nineteenth century, the town experienced several destructive fires and floods, destroying grain elevators, hundreds of homes, and numerous businesses. Still, this resilient community always managed to recover, rebuild and prosper. The pioneer men and women of early Salem also exhibited a remarkable propensity for using the resources and riches of the frontier to make a wonderful life for themselves on the plains of the Dakotas. Richard F. Kneip was a local milk equipment businessman who went on to serve as Governor of South Dakota, and later as Ambassador to Singapore. The sense of community, moral fortitude, perseverance, and enduring work ethic that is evident in the people and the history of Salem, stands as a testament to the integrity of South Dakotans. It is my honor to acknowledge the proud residents of Salem, SD as they celebrate 125 years of vibrant history on July 2-4, 2005.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the city of Bridgewater, SD. In addition to celebrating our nation's independence, we are called today to commemorate 125 years of Bridegewater's proud history. Like many towns in South Dakota, the railroad played an influential role in the founding of Bridgewater. In early 1880, Bridgewater received its original name, Nation City, from the first settlers and townsite owners, Robert and John B. Nation. In late November of that year, however, the town's first train depot was built to accommodate the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad, and the town's name changed from Nation City to Bridgewater. In fact, it was the rail workers who ultimately renamed the city, having been forced to carry their drinking water across a bridge near town. One of early Bridgewater's unique traditions was the chatauqua, a summer festival under a tent loaded with singers, bands, orchestras, lectures, and plays. Adults paid $2 and children $1.10 for an entire week of star-studded, cultural entertainment. While this yearly ritual was a town favorite, it quickly lost popularity once roads and cars were improved and movies became more accessible. Unfortunately, Bridgewater's last chatauqua ended prematurely, as a cyclone hit and interrupted the festivities. Bridgewater's first newspaper, the Times, was established in 1880 by Adin F. Terrill. The publication lasted for about 10 years, until it merged with the Bridgewater Brieflet in 1890 and was renamed the Bridgewater Tribune, which still exists to this day. One of Bridgewater's notable landmarks is the city park. Created in 1960 with the help of the Green Thumb organization, the park came to fruition following the purchase of four acres of J.J. Bollinger's property. This community park, a cherished Bridgewater amenity, is host to countless family picnics and outdoor activities. In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, Bridgewater has provided its citizens with a rich and diverse atmosphere. Bridgewater's 600 proud residents will celebrate the town's 125th anniversary on July 4, 2005, and it is with great honor that I share with my colleagues this community's unique past.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank my friend and colleague from Idaho. Mr. President, during the last 4 months, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I serve, has worked diligently toward completing a balanced and comprehensive Energy bill. Through the leadership of Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman, the committee moved forward in a bipartisan fashion toward improving the reliability of our Nation's electricity grid, adopting provisions to encourage Indian tribes to develop clean energy projects and took steps toward addressing past manipulation of western electricity markets, all the while moving to improve the energy efficiency of our economy. The committee also adopted an amendment I offered along with committee members--Senators Talent, Dorgan, and Salazar--in a bipartisan fashion, once again, to increase the amount of renewable fuels used in the Nation's gasoline supply. The amendment before the Senate today creates an 8-billion-gallon renewable fuel standard, RFS, that will lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy while increasing the availability of a clean gasoline fuel extender. Implementing a renewable fuel standard is part and parcel of our goal in producing a balanced and forward-looking energy bill. Why must we do more to promote and develop renewable fuels? In 2003, net imports of crude oil accounted for 56 percent of our domestic petroleum consumption. Americans will spend over $120 billion in 2005 on foreign imports of oil. According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, petroleum imports are projected to reach 68 percent in 2025. This is simply untenable. We need to harness new supplies and conserve better if we are to break this dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Renewable fuels--ethanol, biodiesel, and cellulosic biomass--are grown, produced, and refined here in the United States. Those on the right and the left of the political spectrum agree that we need to increase the production of renewable fuels as one important tool toward lessening our dependence on foreign oil. In 2004, the United States produced almost 3.5 billion gallons of ethanol. That level of renewable fuel production directly replaces millions of barrels of foreign oil annually and reduces our trade deficit, all the while creating jobs at home in the United States. As States look for solutions to reduce petroleum fuel use, renewable fuels keep appearing as a critical component to any strategy. Thus it is no surprise that a May 2005 staff report by the California Energy Commission determined that increasing to 10 percent the amount of ethanol blended into a gallon of gasoline in California would reduce by 28 percent the amount of petroleum used in that State by 2025. In addition to displacing imported oil, renewable fuels also lower retail gasoline prices--lower gas prices for Americans. Contrary to some of the falsehoods that some have tried to peddle, if these clean- burning fuels disappeared from the marketplace tomorrow, your constituents would pay more at the pump for a gallon of gasoline. At the end of April, the average nationwide price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.25, and the spot market for a gallon of wholesale ethanol is at a price of $1.24 per gallon of ethanol--$2.25 per gallon for gasoline, $1.24 per gallon of ethanol. It doesn't take a genius to figure that the more ethanol blended in the gallon of gasoline, the lower the price overall to consumers. Perhaps the better question to ask is not why gasoline prices are so high, but why isn't ethanol used more widely in the marketplace? Apparently, there are many starting to ask that question, and not just farmers and ethanol producers. On May 5, the California Independent Oil Marketers Association wrote to the California Air Resources Board seeking approval to use up to 10 percent ethanol blended gasoline in the California market. In the letter to the California Air Resources Board, the Independent Marketers state that using a 10-percent blend as opposed to California's current 5.7-percent blend would provide more stability to the State's fuel supply. It is not just marketers seeking greater use of ethanol. The Consumer Federation of America, in a May 2005 analysis on the difference between gasoline and ethanol prices, concluded that because of the difference between the wholesale price of ethanol and the average wholesale price of gasoline, the consumers purchasing gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol are saving as much as 8 cents a gallon versus fuels not blended with ethanol, lowering the price at the pump by 8 cents a gallon. Renewable fuels, therefore, extend supplies, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and lower prices at the pump for consumers. The amendment before the Senate would phase in, over 7 years, a nationwide renewable fuels standard of 8 billion gallons. Let me put that in some perspective. In 2004, the United States consumed about 160 billion gallons of gasoline, and the U.S. domestic ethanol production topped out at about 3.5 billion gallons--160 billion gallons of gasoline, 3.5 billion gallons of ethanol. With nearly a billion gallons of production under construction, the previous effort to implement a 5-billion RFS by 2012 is woefully inadequate to meet growing production. Phasing in an 8-billion-gallon renewable fuel standard over 7 years can be accomplished. Increasing production will meet the requirement, all the while creating 234,000 jobs and adding $20 billion in gross domestic production between 2005 and 2012. This amendment will also create opportunities for cellulosic ethanol and sugar cane ethanol and spurs biodiesel production in the South and Western United States. The amendment includes language championed by my colleague and friend, Senator Cantwell of Washington, which will further incentivize cellulosic ethanol. With record-high gasoline prices, with an ever-growing dependence on foreign sources of energy, our Nation must do more to promote and utilize renewable fuels. Creating a strong renewable fuel program that captures biodiesel, ethanol, and other renewable energy sources must be a cornerstone to the comprehensive energy bill. Mr. President, it is with great satisfaction that I have this opportunity to speak to the 8-billion RFS provision that was added to the Energy Committee's bill which was voted out on a 22-to-1 passage of the total bill and with great support of the ethanol provision in that bill. I am confident that this body will maintain that 8-billion RFS requirement. All the more so, it is important because the House Energy bill contains only a 5-billion-gallon RFS, a level that is simply inadequate, that the ethanol industry is on the verge of outstripping already even without an RFS. If we are going to be serious about displacing billions of gallons of foreign petroleum, if we are going to be serious about reducing the dependence on foreign petroleum, of reducing our trade imbalance--which is imbalanced, in large measure, because of the massive importation of petroleum--if we are going to have a foreign policy and a military policy that is not impacted by the need to protect and defend the oil lanes around the world in unstable Third World areas, if we are going to create more jobs--not just in a handful of communities but in rural communities across this country--if we are going to drive up the prices that farmers get for their product while at the same time giving them an opportunity to benefit from the dividends of the stock they own in these ethanol plants, then it ought to be obvious, whether you come from farm areas or urban areas, that this RFS makes all the sense in the world, for the sake of our economy, for the sake of clean air, for the sake of our foreign policy, for the sake of trade policy, for the sake of jobs. I am pleased this particular legislation with its broad-based bipartisan 22- to-1 vote out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee is on this floor and within the coming week or so we will be able to pass this bill, go to conference, and, I am confident, work out the differences with our colleagues on the House side and get this bill to the President's desk. Finally, after years of turmoil and effort, we will have a comprehensive energy bill that will benefit the entire Nation. I am pleased we have reached this point. I am pleased with the great success of the 8-billion RFS amendment. I look forward to its passage and urge my colleagues to be supportive of this RFS requirement contained in the bill coming to us from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish today to honor and publicly recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the town of Kennebec, SD. Kennebec has a strong sense of past and anticipates a bright future. Since 1924, Kennebec has been the county seat for Lyman County, located in central South Dakota. Few people lived in the area prior to the town's establishment in 1905, as it was challenging to import the supplies necessary to sustain a substantial population. In 1905, however, railroad tracks were laid through the area, thus making it significantly easier for residents to build homes and other structures, since materials no longer needed to be hauled in from surrounding towns and cities. The railroad and influx of people mark the birth of Kennebec. By 1907, Kennebec was a bustling prairie town full of diverse and eager residents. As years passed and the town flourished, a number of businesses opened, such as the hardware store operated by Albert Williamson. In addition to running the hardware store, Williamson also edited and printed the county newspaper known as the Prairie Sun. Also around this time, Sam Abdnor built and operated a store that survives to this day as the Kennebec movie theatre. Many of my colleagues will recognize the surname ``Abdnor'' and will recall that former U.S. Senator Jim Abdnor hails from Kennebec. He served admirably as Lt. Governor, in the U.S. House of Representatives for 8 years and in this body for an additional 6 years, having never forgotten the community of Kennebec or its people. In the town's early days, there was only a single doctor in Kennebec, and water had to be hauled by horse-drawn wagons from wells over a mile and a half to the north of the community. All other needs were met by the railroad, which delivered merchandise to the stores and shops, as well as thousands of tons of coal, which was required to heat homes in Kennebec during the long winters. Not only did the railroad allow imports into town, but it also fostered the transport of Kennebec's main exports, which included cattle, sheep and hogs. Kennebec had no electrical power until 1914, when John Spotts of Armour, SD moved into town. Spotts bought a track of land southeast of Kennebec and built a two-story brick building with a full size basement. The upper floors provided a dance floor and silent movie theater for Kennebec residents, while the basement served as the first electric power plant in the town. After a hundred years, Kennebec supports a population of over 280 citizens and continues to modernize and improve itself in its role to serve the farmers and ranchers throughout the region. Kennebec's proud citizens celebrate their 100th anniversary on June 18, 2005, and it is with great honor that I share with my colleagues the achievements made by this great community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I publicly recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the city of Reliance, SD. It is at this time that I would like to draw your attention to and commemorate the achievements and history of this charming city on the western prairie, which stands as an enduring tribute to the moral fortitude and pioneer spirit of the earliest Dakotans. Located in Lyman County in western South Dakota, the original town- site of Reliance was plotted in the summer of 1905 after officials decided the new railroad's route would not include the already- established towns in the area. As a result, a new town was created on the homestead of Mr. C.C. Herron in order to service the Milwaukee Railroad. This original town-site, located on the southwest quarter of Section 21, encompassed a mere eight blocks. However, several additions were made to this small city between 1905 and 1910 with the help of the Milwaukee Land Company. Today, the town is nearly one square mile in area. Reliance's early years proved to be incredibly prosperous. The Dirks Mercantile Company, a two-story building used for general store business and public gatherings, was a central part of life in the early years of this small city. An advertisement in the Lyman County Record stated that Dirks Mercantile Company ``would buy anything you wanted to sell and sell anything you wanted to buy.'' Reliance grew rapidly and in less than a decade came to include two saloons, two blacksmith shops, two banks, two lumberyards, a livery barn, three stores, two hardware stores, one creamery, three elevators, one harness shop, one cafe, and two hotels. Like many small agricultural communities in the area, Reliance experienced a great deal of economic prosperity in the years after World War I. In 1918, the town became the first in Lyman County to provide a 4-year accredited high school. Today, Reliance is a popular fishing spot thanks to the dam built by the Works Project Administration (WPA) during the 1930s. The dam was heavily stocked with several species of fish and provides sportsmen with the opportunity to enjoy the recreational treasures of South Dakota. While the small city of Reliance boasted a population of 317 at its peak in 1920, the town has seen small declines in recent years, and is home to 206 residents today. Despite its small size, in the years since its founding, Reliance has proven its ability to thrive and serve farmers and ranchers throughout the region. The proud residents of Reliance will celebrate their vibrant history and the legacy of the pioneer spirit to which our small cities stand as a living shrine with its 100th anniversary on July 25, 2005.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to honor and publicly recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the town of Presho, SD. As the 100th anniversary approaches, Presho looks back on a proud history and looks forward to a promising future. Named by the town's first Postmaster, Chris Hellekson, Presho is named for the extinct county in which it was originally located, Presho County. Now located in Lyman County, Presho was platted in June of 1905 when the Milwaukee Land Company purchased a plot of land from Sidney F. Hockersmith. On November 9, 1905, the Milwaukee Land Company divided the land into 16 lots and held a public auction. Peter B. Dirks and E.M. Sedgwick purchased the first lot for $500, and within eight minutes of completing the sale, Presho's first bank was moved onto the site, having already completed its initial transaction while en route. Despite being only .7 square miles in area, Presho drew an enormous population as newcomers took the Milwaukee Railroad as far west as it went. Until 1906, the westernmost point was Presho, SD. Once the railroad was extended farther, however, Presho's population, which totaled 2,000 at its peak, gradually decreased. Currently, about 600 residents live in this flourishing community. One of the town's most notable historic events was its first Fourth of July celebration and auto race, which took place in 1906. In fact, it is thought that this auto race is the first ever held west of the Missouri River. At least 5,000 people were in attendance. Mr. President, Presho's proud residents celebrate their community's centennial anniversary on July 4, 2005, and it is with great honor that I share with my colleagues the history of this great community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to President Bush's nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to be United States Circuit Court Judge to the Court of Appeals for the DC. Circuit. This morning, the Washington Post editorialized against the nomination of Justice Brown, writing that she ``is that rare nominee for whom one can draw a direct line between intellectual advocacy of aggressive judicial behavior and actual conduct as a judge,'' I agree with this respected newspaper's assessment and ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have several concerns about Justice Brown's ability to serve on this important court. On the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown has proven to be an activist judge when it suits her political agenda. Consistently, and despite precedent to the contrary, Justice Brown has ruled on the side of corporations. For example, in a cigarette sales case, she ignored relevant law and protected corporations in lieu of protecting minors. In other cases she has placed corporate interests above law that intended to shield consumers and women. Justice Brown has also attempted to remove protections for teachers, and has been hostile to such New Deal era programs as Social Security. She has called government assistance programs ``[t]he drug of choice for . . . Midwestern farmers, and militant senior citizens.'' These views are out of touch with most Americans and South Dakotans. During today's debate, colleagues argued that because Justice Brown has been reelected by California voters by a 76 percent margin, she should not be considered ``out of the mainstream.'' This argument is misplaced. First, many other judges get reelected at a higher rate. It should also be noted that her retention reelection took place only 1\1/ 2\ years into her tenure on the California Supreme Court, at a time before her extreme views and activist agenda could have been known by voters. Both the American Bar Association and the California Judicial Commission have questioned Justice Brown qualifications to serve on the bench. The California Judicial Commission specifically noted questions about her deviation from precedent and her ``tendency to interject her political and philosophical views into her opinions.'' We should note their concerns and seriously consider them. Justice Brown's views and history of judicial activism is especially dangerous in the DC Circuit. She is a nominee who is far outside of the mainstream. For these reasons, I stand in opposition of the confirmation and lifelong appointment of Janice Rogers Brown. Reject Justice Brown [From the Washington Post, June 7, 2005] The Senate filibuster agreement guaranteeing up-or-down votes for most judicial nominees creates a test for conservatives who rail against judicial activism. For decades, conservative politicians have objected to the use of the courts to bring about liberal policy results, arguing that judges should take a restrained view of their role. Now, with Republicans in control of the presidency and the Senate, President Bush has nominated a judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit who has been more open about her enthusiasm for judicial adventurism than any nominee of either party in a long time. But Janice Rogers Brown's activism comes from the right, not the left; the rights she would write into the Constitution are economic, not social. Suddenly, all but a few conservatives seem to have lost their qualms about judicial activism. Justice Brown, who serves on the California Supreme Court, will get her vote as early as tomorrow. No senator who votes for her will have standing any longer to complain about legislating from the bench. Justice Brown, in speeches, has openly embraced the ``Lochner'' era of Supreme Court jurisprudence. During this period a century ago, the court struck down worker protection laws that, the justices held, violated a right to free contract they found in the Constitution's due process protections. There exist few areas of greater agreement in the study of constitutional law than the disrepute of the ``Lochner'' era, whose very name--taken from the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York--has become a code word for judicial overreaching. Justice Brown, however, has dismissed the famed dissent in Lochner by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, saying it ``annoyed her'' and was ``simply wrong.'' And she has celebrated the possibility of a revival of ``what might be called Lochnerism-lite'' using a different provision of the Constitution--the prohibition against governmental ``takings'' of private property without just compensation. In the context of her nomination, Justice Brown has trivialized such statements as merely attempts to be provocative. But she has not just given provocative speeches; ``Lochnerism-lite'' is a fairly good shorthand for her work on the bench, where she has sought to use the takings doctrine aggressively. She began one dissent, in a case challenging regulation of a hotel, by noting that ``private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco.'' Her colleagues on the California Supreme Court certainly got what she was up to. In response, they quoted Justice Holmes's Lochner dissent and noted that ``nothing in the law of takings would justify an appointed judiciary in imposing [any] personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state.'' Justice Brown is that rare nominee for whom one can draw a direct line between intellectual advocacy of aggressive judicial behavior and actual conduct as a judge. Time was when conservatives were wary of judges who openly yearned for courts, as Justice Brown puts it, ``audacious enough to invoke higher law''--instead of, say, the laws the people's elected representatives see fit to pass. That Justice Brown will now get a vote means that each senator must take a stand on whether some forms of judicial activism are more acceptable than others. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the town of De Smet, SD. As the 125th anniversary approaches, De Smet looks back on a proud history and looks forward to a promising future. Founded in 1880 by the Western Town Lot Company, De Smet is almost equidistant from the Nebraska State line and from the North Dakota State line. Situated in central Kingsbury County, De Smet is named for Father Pierre Jean De Smet, a Belgian priest who tirelessly worked among the region's local Indian tribes. Despite the town's status as Kingsbury County seat, De Smet originally was sparsely populated, home predominantly to single men. The arrival of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad in 1880, however, sparked an influx of residents that included many families. In 1889, De Smet's most notable resident, Laura Ingalls Wilder, author of the Little House on the Prairie books which evolved into the longest running series in TV history, arrived with her family. While her series immortalizes this great community, every summer De Smet honors the famous writer with the Laura Ingalls Wilder Pageant. Another of De Smet's attractions is Washington Park, host to countless family picnics and outdoor activities. The park is also home to a statue honoring Father Pierre Jean De Smet, the duplicate of which is located in his hometown of Dendermonde, Belgium. De Smet's statue, which was dedicated to the public on June 8, 1986, established a bond between Dendermonde, Belgium and De Smet, SD and the two became sister cities. De Smet's other distinguished landmarks include the historic courthouse, the Ingalls Homestead, the Loftus Store, and the De Smet Depot, a museum immortalizing the town's past. Additionally, De Smet's over 1,100 residents have come to count on The News, founded in 1880, and The Kingsbury County Independent, established in 1890, for quality and accurate reporting on local events and affairs. In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, De Smet has proven its ability to thrive, while preserving and cherishing its rich past. De Smet's proud residents celebrate its 125th anniversary on June 11, 2005, and it is with great honor that I share with my colleagues the achievements made by this great community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to publicly congratulate The Spitznagel Partners, Inc., TSP, on its 75th anniversary as one of South Dakota's premier architectural, engineering, and construction firms. Founded in Sioux Falls on June 9, 1930, by Sioux Falls native, Harold T. Spitznagel, TSP is the largest architectural and engineering firm in the State. Throughout its 75 years, TSP has contributed to the landscape of 100 different South Dakota communities. Among its most notable structures are the Sylvan Lake Hotel, Sioux Falls City Hall, St. Mary's Catholic Church, Sioux Falls Arena, IBP/Tyson Foods Corporate Headquarters, South Dakota Technology Business Center, Harrisburg High School, and Sioux Falls Veterans' Memorial Park. Following the firm's significant expansion in 1969, TSP established offices in Minnesota, Wyoming, Colorado, Iowa, and Nebraska. Accordingly, what was once a small budding company staffed by a single person in Sioux Falls is now a prominent firm with offices in nine cities and over 200 employees. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I share with my colleagues the accomplishments of Harold T. Spitznagel, his partners, associates, and employees. TSP's proven success will undoubtedly continue to enhance both the beauty and property of South Dakota for many years to come.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the city of Spencer, SD. On June 18, 2005, the citizens of Spencer will celebrate their city's proud past, as well as their hope for a promising future. Located in southeastern South Dakota, the origin of Spencer's name is a bit contentious. One story tells of an Indian Camp located exactly where the town of Spencer now sits. One tale has it that scouts from the Lewis and Clark expedition came across the Indian Camp in 1804, where they found an ill and weary Indian woman with her new born baby. After nursing the two back to health, the woman gave the men a short jacket, known as a ``Spencer'' jacket, as a token of her gratitude. Additionally, she prophesied that a city would one day flourish there; decades later, her prophecy was fulfilled. The railroad came to Dakota Territory in 1887, and in the words of the Spencer News, the town ``like a mushroom, sprang into existence.'' Similarly, the other account of Spencer's name asserts it was named for Hugh Spencer, the division superintendent of the Omaha Railroad. Platted in 1880, Spencer was officially incorporated into McCook County in 1917. Ever since E. L. Hunskaar opened the town's first railroad depot in 1887, the community has been home to a number of prosperous businesses and has supported farmers and ranchers across the region. Unfortunately, as many know, Spencer suffered a horrific tragedy in 1998 when the most destructive tornado in South Dakota history, an F-4, devastated the region. On Saturday, May 30, the tornado ripped through the tiny town, killing six people and injuring over 150 of Spencer's 320 residents. I remember peering over the city from a ladder on a Sioux Falls fire truck and thinking how much the terrible scene resembled a Civil War battlefield. Most of the houses were reduced to rubble; the post office, first station, library, bank, and multiple churches were all destroyed. Despite the devastation, Spencer's dedicated residents committed themselves to the rebuilding effort with undaunted determination. As a result of the residents' diligence and determination, Spencer commemorates its 125th anniversary as a proud and thriving town. In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, Spencer has proven its ability to flourish and survive. Spencer's proud residents celebrate its 125th anniversary on June 18, 2005, and it is with great pleasure that I share with my colleagues the achievements made by this remarkable and resilient community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the city of Redfield, SD. As the 125th anniversary approaches, Redfield looks back on a proud history and looks forward to a promising future. Located in east central South Dakota, Redfield is the county seat for Spink County, the largest wheat-producing county in our State. First settled in 1878 by Frank Meyers and a party of Chicago and Northwestern surveyors, Redfield was originally known as ``Stennett Junction;'' named after an official with the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. The term ``Junction'' was added in anticipation of the railroad's popularity. Meyers established the first post office in 1880, thus marking the town's official birth. In February of 1881, however, the town's name was changed to Redfield, after Joseph Barlow Redfield, an auditor with the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company who purchased a great deal of the area's land for investors in Chicago. Although Redfield now serves as the county seat for Spink County, prior to 1886, that was not the case. In fact, Redfield supporters fought a contentious and controversial county seat battle between Old Ashton, Ashton, Frankfort and Redfield. Despite these efforts, old Ashton retained its position as county seat. All that changed, however, in 1886, when Redfield honestly won the majority of the votes in Spink County and was awarded the seat it still proudly claims. Among the city's many landmarks is the historic Carnegie Library. In 1902, Redfield welcomed a grant from the Andrew Carnegie Foundation that made the library possible. This contribution transformed a simple reading club into a majestic red brick building adorned with a tan sandstone foundation, a domed cupola and beautiful oak columns and woodwork. In the library's early years, it housed the Redfield city offices, in addition to the collections; the City Auditor doubled as librarian. Recently, I had the pleasure of helping the community of Redfield secure $100,000 to renovate and expand this historic structure, which is the oldest continuous-use Carnegie Library in South Dakota. The South Dakota Developmental Center, SDDC, is another notable Redfield landmark. Opened in 1902, the SDDC originally housed the staff and the patients in a single building, which is still used for office space today. There are currently 175 disabled individuals receiving services from SDDC today, ranging in age from 13 months to 78 years of age. Their disabilities range from moderate to profound. Redfield also is home to one of the last surviving drive-in movie theaters. Erected in 1952, Pheasant City Drive-in Theater still entertains more than 2,800 Redfield residents. In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, Redfield has proven its ability to thrive and serve farmers and ranchers throughout the region. Redfield's proud residents celebrate its 125th anniversary July 1-3, 2005, and it is with great honor that I share with my colleagues the achievements made by this great community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for his excellent point. Mr. President, tomorrow we may be casting a historic vote in this Chamber. It has to do with a fundamental decision that we, as Senators, must make as to the very nature of government in our democracy, as to the fundamental values of this body, the Senate. We must choose between whether we will remain with the 200-year-old parliamentary rules of this body, which assure that at least there will be some modicum of bipartisanship on virtually all issues of import, or whether, in unprecedented fashion, we will wind up stripping away that fundamental rule, that 60-vote rule, the filibuster rule which for over 200 years has brought both parties together whether they liked it or not. We must choose whether we should discard that and, in effect, create an environment where it is very clear that the Senate, as has happened all too often to our colleagues in the House, will collapse into a spirit of partisan vituperation that will undo efforts at bringing the parties together, will undo our efforts to build bridges between Republicans and Democrats, and will push governance in this body to the far extremes, far outside the political centrism that is the genius of the American people. In my State of South Dakota, we have a heavy party registration on the side of the Republican Party. I respect that. I am proud of the support over the years that a great many South Dakotans have cast for me. But whether they are Republicans or Democrats, I think the overwhelming view across my State is one of common sense. It recognizes that neither one of the political parties has all the answers, that both parties have their share of bad ideas, and that governance from the far left or the far right is equally unacceptable. Wisdom in America, more often than not, is found in the political center. That is what the filibuster rule, that is what the filibuster margin has forced upon the Senate and is what makes the Senate unique, different from the House of Representatives. I served 10 years in the House. It was an honor to serve there. But I know the nature of the rules there and what happens. One party can run roughshod over the other. All too often, bipartisanship is viewed by the current leadership on the House side with contempt. The thought that there ought to be governance from the center, and bipartisanship, is viewed by some in the other party as ``girly-man'' politics, unworthy of their radical agenda. It is here in the Senate that the Founders, 200 years ago, understood that this body's orientation would be to take the longer view. This body was to be the more deliberative body. This body would not march lockstep to any ideological drummer. More than any other factor in the Senate, what has enforced that different character on the Senate, a character which has served the American people so well, has been the 60-vote margin rule. Both parties know that in order to make much of anything happen here, they must reach across the aisle. Not a lot. It doesn't require a huge number of members of the opposing political party, but it requires some. That has had a wonderful beneficial consequence for the wisdom of legislation in America, and certainly for the selection of judges. There is no judicial crisis. We all know. One doesn't have to be a cynic to understand that the judicial crisis, if you will, is a fabricated political vehicle. President Bush has had 208 of his judges approved by broad, bipartisan margins. Essentially each and every one of them was a conservative Republican judge. That is the President's prerogative. The Senate has not reacted negatively to that. Put this in contrast with what we saw only a few years ago during the Clinton administration. President Bush has had all of his nominees receive hearings. All of his nominees, who were so chosen, received a vote up or down--a 60-vote margin vote but a vote nonetheless. Every Senator has been required to stand up and be counted and reflect back to his or her constituencies where they stood on that judge. In the case of President Clinton, however, over 60 of his nominees received no hearing or no vote. Where was the clamor then? Where was the cry of unfairness then? I think, to Senator Reid's great good credit, as well as Senator Leahy, we have agreed that what was done to President Clinton should never be done to President Bush. That was unfair from either political angle. In fact, all of President Bush's nominees should get hearings. If their nomination stands, they should be voted on, publicly, on the record. That is exactly what has happened. But now there are some who suggest that 208 to 10 is unsatisfactory and, for that reason, they are going to upend these historic rules of the Senate. They are going to discard the Senate as the one body of the two that forces bipartisanship and political centrism. Senator Reid deserves great credit for his efforts to try to reach some compromise with the majority leader. Unfortunately, those effort have--to this point, in any event--been futile. One can only come to the conclusion that the majority leadership has reached such an impasse because of a certain amount of pandering to the radical right that now no compromise of any kind is acceptable. So here we stand with the very likely, very clear possibility that the fundamental checks and balances of American government--the requirement that there be moderation, the requirement that we govern from the center and not from the far left or far right--is about to be discarded. Let no one believe that this has to do only with judges. The political tactic here once used is then available. The precedent is available for all issues, whether they have to do with education, environment, health care, the budget, war--all of these issues will henceforth be susceptible to a partisan party-line vote from one side of the political spectrum or the other. That is a tragic change after 200-some years of the Senate being the body of deliberation, being the body of political moderation. We ought to be dealing, rather than with this issue, with the core issues that my constituents--and I think all Americans--care about. We have great undone business relative to the deficit, relative to job creation, relative to trying to make sure all Americans have access to affordable health care. We have changes that are needed in our educational system, both under No Child Left Behind as well as reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We have a transportation bill. We have an energy bill before us. Yet here we are, arguing about a parliamentary step which--while many people will view as ``inside baseball,'' as something of no great consequence, this issue, this vote we will take soon--is of monumental consequence to the nature of the institution that will be deciding all these other matters in the years to come. I wish there were no need for any of us to be rising on this occasion for such an extraordinary, such a potentially tragic step that this body may be taking. The Founders of our country understood, over 200 years ago, that the House of Representatives would be the hot house, the people's House. It would be immediately responsive to whatever wind is blowing through Washington. Their rules, which give virtually no rights to the minority, and their 2-year terms, assure the nature of that House. But the Founders also understood that Senators representing entire States would be more moderate in their outlook, and the 6-year terms would give them a longer view of what is right or not in legislation pending before us. Within the rules of the Senate, the filibuster rule, the 60-vote margin rule, has served America well. It has pushed the political debate to a commonsense point--common sense being a value that my constituents would tell me is all too rare in Washington, DC, but which does occur as often as it does in no small measure because of the filibuster rule and its insistence, grabbing both political parties by the collars, pushing them together, and saying, You must work together or otherwise neither of you will have your way. This is an effort to radicalize the Senate, to radicalize government in America in a way that many Americans will never understand. They will never recognize how this could have happened. It is my hope as we come down to these final hours that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will pause and take a long view of the role of this institution, of the importance of centrism, cooperation, of bipartisanship and all that means, if we truly are to reflect the values and priorities of the American people here in the Senate. If we allow this institution to veer off sharply to either ideological end of the spectrum, we will have done a horrible disservice to the American people, to future generations of Americans, and, frankly, to the world. This issue is that fundamental. It goes to the very nature of governance in America. It is my hope all our colleagues will rise to stand as statesmen at a time when political pressures are great for what is right and will cast a loud vote to be counted by the American people on behalf of what is right rather than what is politically convenient at this particular time in our history. It is my hope that in these intervening hours we will have a significant number of people who will understand what is at stake and, in fact, uphold the values and priorities of the American people by retaining the parliamentary rules of this body that have prevailed for well over 200 years, will understand there is no judicial crisis, will understand when it comes to giving lifetime appointments to the bench it would be very easy for President Bush to have 100 percent of his judges approved simply by nominating judges who can be approved by 60 Members of this body. That is a modest request. That is the kind of consultative role the Founders envisioned under their constitutional provision of advice and consent. The goal was not to create a lockstep ideological opportunity. The goal was for both parties to work together and in good faith evaluate the qualities of people who will serve our judiciary for lifetime appointments. It is my hope we will not abuse that opportunity and that we will cast that vote to preserve that orientation, preserve the very values of the Senate. Mr. President, I yield my time.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly honor the career of Mr. Arlo Levisen, superintendent of the Grant-Duel School District. After 15 years of dedicated service as Grant-Duel's top administrator, Arlo is retiring. A native of Milbank, SD and son of a farmer and 40-year Grant County educator, Arlo graduated in 1962 from South Shore High School. He then went on to receive his Bachelor of Science degree from Aberdeen's Northern State College in 1967, graduating with a degree in elementary education and history. Throughout the latter portion of the 1960s, Arlo taught at and was principal of various schools throughout South Dakota, including Yankton, Pine Ridge, Kyle, Lyman, and Deubrook School District. These diverse educational experiences allowed Arlo to understand and appreciate the various learning environments South Dakota has to offer. In 1979, in addition to his position as principal of Lyman School District's elementary and junior high schools, Arlo took on the responsibility of serving as commodity supervisor of the South Dakota Department of Education's Child and Adult Nutrition Services. There he was responsible for annually purchasing 22 million pounds of USDA commodities and distributing them to 600 South Dakota institutions and reservations. In 1984, Arlo became principal of the Pierre Indian Learning Center, a boarding school created solely for the purpose of educating Indian children with a history of behavioral disorders. As head of the learning center, Arlo oversaw 185 students ranging from first through eighth grades, as well as 40 staff members. Following his time at the Pierre Indian Learning Center, Arlo accepted the position as superintendent of the Grant-Duel School District, where he has remained for the last decade and a half. Throughout his tenure at Grant-Duel, Arlo has enhanced the lives of countless students by broadening their educational opportunities. For instance, he was instrumental in opening Watertown High School's classes to Grant-Duel students, thus enabling his students to experience all that a larger school district has to offer. As a result of this initiative, Grand-Duel students are often better prepared and able to adjust quickly to the enormous campus life that many encounter in college. Additionally, Arlo played a vital role in establishing the Minnesota Border Schools Coalition, an association created to discuss and implement South Dakota and Minnesota's open enrollment policy. Not only is Arlo the current president of the organization, but under his leadership and direction, Grant-Duel School was the first school to accept a Minnesota student. Throughout the years, thousands of students have benefited from Arlo's commitment to educational excellence, as have his colleagues. In 1991, Arlo helped establish and chair The South Dakota School Group Insurance Pool, a health insurance pool created to make affordable health insurance available to Grant-Duel faculty. In addition to the hours he puts in as superintendent of the Grant- Duel School District, Arlo is vice-chairman of the board of directors for Pierre Odyssey World, Inc., he is a member of Capital City Bass Bandits, a volunteer advisor to the U.S. Forest Service, a member of the High Plains Wildlife Federation, and county chairman of the Hughes County Democratic Party. The lives of countless people have been enormously enhanced by Arlo's talent and leadership as superintendent of the Grant-Duel School District. The State of South Dakota is a better place because of his commitment to and passion for academic excellence; his achievement will serve as a model for other talented educators and administrators throughout our State to emulate. On the occasion of his retirement, I congratulate Arlo for his tireless commitment to quality education in South Dakota, and I wish him and his family the very best.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sent his base closure recommendations to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. I am deeply disappointed with his decision to include Ellsworth Air Force Base. This recommendation is short-sighted and harmful to our national security. I am confident that the BRAC Commission will recognize the invaluable contribution that Ellsworth makes to the defense of our homeland and will support removing it from the list. Ellsworth is one of only two bases in the country where the B-1 is stationed. In the past decade, the B-1 has been invaluable to our national defense and it is truly the backbone of our bomber fleet. B-1 crews stationed at Ellsworth have flown missions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, B-1s were integral in liberating Iraq by dropping more than half the satellite guided munitions on critical targets including command and control facilities, bunkers, and surface-to-air missile sites. In addition, Ellsworth is strategically located and has excellent access to B-1 training ranges. It is not threatened by urban encroachment or congested air space and has strong community support. During the past decade, I have used my position on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee to help direct funding to Ellsworth for critical upgrades including a new base operations building, a B-1 training facility, and military housing that ranks amongst the best in the country. Given its ideal location, as well as the long-term investment in the base's infrastructure, Ellsworth is capable of expanding and accepting new missions. I emphatically disagree with the Secretary's recommendation to close Ellsworth, and I am eager to work with the Ellsworth Task Force, and the entire South Dakota Congressional delegation, to ensure Ellsworth remains a vital part of our national defense. Ellsworth is a premier installation that has proven it can be a competitive military base for decades to come. To that end, I am cosponsoring legislation that will postpone this round of base closures. At a time when we are engaged in two military conflicts, as well as rotating soldiers back to the U.S. from overseas installations, we should not be closing bases at home. Simultaneously closing domestic and overseas bases will irrevocably damage our ability to defend against threats at home and abroad. This bill will delay this round of domestic base closures until the recommendations offered by the Overseas Basing Commission report has been reviewed by the Department of Defense. In addition, the bill would prohibit this round of base closures from commencing until combat units currently deployed to Iraq have returned home and the Pentagon completes the quadrennial defense review. I firmly believe that these are reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure we do not irreversibly impair our national defense. The entire State of South Dakota is proud of Ellsworth and the men and women stationed there for their role in keeping America safe. We are confident that the commission will see the military value of Ellsworth and will support removing it from the base closure list.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend two American Legion Auxiliary units in South Dakota for the wonderful services they provide to their communities. I point to Unit 230 Pike- Huska American Legion Auxiliary Post of Aurora, and Unit 74 of Brookings as fine units whose efforts are worthy of recognition. In April of 2005, Unit 230 in Aurora sponsored an Election Forum designed to introduce voters to the four candidates running for Aurora City Council. The meeting enabled the community to not only meet the candidates, but also learn about their positions on various issues. Additionally, Aurora Unit 230 joined with Brookings Unit 74 to fulfill ``The Dictionary Project.'' Since Aurora school children are bussed to the three schools in the Brookings School District, the two units collaborated by purchasing and hand delivering 206 dictionaries, one to each third grade student in the Brookings district. Upon receiving the dictionary, each student signed it, thus establishing it as his or hers to keep. ``The Dictionary Project'' was so successful that the Auxiliary plans to continue this generous program each year. I am proud to have this opportunity to honor the American Legion Auxiliary Unit 230 and Unit 74 for their outstanding service. Their commitment to encouraging voter awareness and helping our young people in their pursuit of knowledge is admirable. I strongly commend their hard work and dedication, and I am very pleased that their efforts are being publicly recognized and celebrated. It is with great honor that I share their impressive commitment to civic duty with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, thousands of men and women are proudly serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the majority will return home to their loved ones, more than 1,700 have paid the ultimate sacrifice to their country, and nearly 13,000 have been wounded in action. Even after Iraq's historic elections in January, violence continues on a daily basis with no end in sight to the insurgency. Today, the Senate is preparing to approve another massive supplemental appropriations request from the Bush administration to fund ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most recent request of $82 billion makes it the second largest supplemental appropriations measure Congress has ever passed and brings the total amount of appropriated funds to $275 billion. I support this supplemental request because I firmly believe that Congress has an obligation to provide our troops with all the resources they need to complete their mission. While I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's continued practice of funding our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan through supplemental appropriations requests rather than the normal annual appropriations process, the bill contains too many important resources for our troops not to support it. This bill includes additional funding above the President's request for essential items such as up-armored Army Humvees, add-on vehicle armor kits, night vision equipment, and radio jammers that disrupt remote-controlled bombs used by Iraqi insurgents. In addition, Congress recognizes the extraordinary sacrifices our soldiers are making in defense of freedom by increasing the amount of life insurance servicemembers can purchase, as well as the one-time death gratuity a soldier's surviving family members receives. Having said that, I have deep concerns about this most recent supplemental request. For over 2 years, American soldiers have been shouldering most of the peace-keeping burden in Iraq. While no one dismisses the contributions being made by coalition members, once again, I ask President Bush to reach out to our allies so that our efforts in Iraq are truly an international effort. The entire world has much to gain by a secure and peaceful Iraq, and other nations should do their fair share because we ask even more of our brave men and women in uniform. While I am supportive of quick action on funding for U.S. troops, I must express my strong opposition to the way the Republican leadership is forcing approval of far-reaching driver license legislation as part of this bill. There has been no real opportunity for debate of the ``REAL ID'' amendment. Its inclusion in this must-pass bill subverts the work of the Regulatory Negotiation Advisory Committee that was established in last year's intelligence overhaul bill to provide a thoughtful and carefully crafted approach to driver's license legislation. Because we are now faced with a conference report on emergency funding, no further amendments will be permitted and Senators must vote yes or no on the entire package. The REAL ID amendment will saddle the States with a $500 million unfunded mandate over the next 5 years, while at the same time, complicating the issuing and re-issuing of drivers licenses. State employees will be required to assume the duties of the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service at a time when States are already reeling from Federal cuts in Medicaid, education, and community development funding. With no opportunity for amendments or expert testimony, Congress is being required to establish what amounts to a national ID card. While the goal of establishing more secure driver's licenses in the post-9/11 world is vitally important, it should be the responsibility of the Advisory Committee. Forcing this ill-considered amendment past Congress on the back of an unrelated bill that provides needed funds for our troops is wrong and a disservice to the American people. I am uncomfortable conducting Senate business in this manner, particularly when it comes to issues that affect the security of our personal identity. These provisions were attached to a vital appropriations bill before authorizing Senate committees of jurisdiction had an opportunity to properly scrutinize the content, conduct hearings, and pose questions to administration officials and other interested individuals. Even more astounding, Democrats were not included in negotiations to determine the immigration provisions of this bill. On matters as important as immigration reform and homeland security, it is misguided and short-sighted to pass legislation in this ad hoc fashion. Forcing Senators to support funding for our troops by voting in favor of legislation they may oppose is not in the best interest of our country. I have deep reservations about some of the provisions included in this bill, and I hope they can be reconsidered as measures apart from this supplemental bill. However, I will vote in favor of providing additional funds for our troops. Our first priority must be to ensure our troops have the necessary tools to finish their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan as swiftly and as safely as possible.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Will my colleague from North Dakota yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSON. Do I understand the ranking member of the Budget Committee correctly to say that what this budget proposes to do is to make room for a massive tax cut for those making over $1 million per year--not just millionaires but people who make $1 million each and every year--at a cost of $32 billion in the coming decade, and that we are going to have to borrow the money to provide for those tax cuts? In order to give multimillionaires a tax cut, we are going to borrow the money from Japan and China and then leave middle-class taxpayers to pay the debt service for the rest of their lives, literally, to cover the cost of that borrowing? That is absolutely astonishing. Is that what the Senator suggests this budget recommends that our Nation do?

Mr. JOHNSON. If my friend will yield further, what is further astonishing about this is that budgets have to do with priorities, much as it does with a family budget. One has to decide can they go to Disney World if they cannot yet figure out how to pay for their groceries or their car payment. That is what families do across North and South Dakota and across this country. To put this in some perspective, this is a $32 billion tax cut next year just for Americans who average $1 million in income. We are being told that there is not enough money to provide full funding for veterans health care. They need about $3 billion to $3.5 billion more next year, we are told by our veterans organizations, in order to honor the service of people who have put their lives on the line and to whom we owe our liberty and freedom, but we are told, no, we cannot afford the $3 billion, $3.5 billion for them, but there is $32 billion for these multimillionaires we are going to borrow. We are being told in school districts all across my State of South Dakota that No Child Left Behind is going to be underfunded by about $12 billion this year. My school districts are struggling. They are releasing teachers and counselors. They do not know what they are going to do. Yet we do not have that $12 billion, but we have $32 billion for Americans making over $1 million a year. It seems to me that these priorities are standing America's values on its head. This does not make any sense to any South Dakotan, Republican or Democrat, in my State, that this would be our Nation's priorities. And then to borrow the money, to boot? This is breathtaking. I appreciate the Budget Committee ranking member's elucidation of these issues because the American public needs to understand what is going on in this Chamber this evening. I fear this budget is selling America down the river in terms of our future priorities and our future financial obligations. When it comes to massive foreign borrowing, does this not even impinge on the very notion of American sovereignty? Are we going to be able to make trade, military, and diplomatic decisions in the future if we are in hock up to our eyeballs to foreign nations, in order to pay off debt to multimillionaires? Does that not have profound long-term consequences for America?