Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly recognize SPC Grant Croft of Sioux Falls, SD, for receiving the Army Commendation Medal. Specialist Croft is serving in Mosul, Iraq, as a medic for the 2nd Platoon, 194th Military Police Company based at Fort Campbell, KY. He is a talented and dedicated serviceman, who, according to his superiors, ``On a daily basis, sets the standard for what a soldier medic should be. Specialists Croft's strength, stamina and moral character are a constant source of strength for our platoon.'' On January 21, 2005, while training at the Udari Range in Iraq, prior to the platoon's arrival in Mosul, Specialist Croft earned the Army Commendation Medal for his performance following an Apache helicopter crash. The Army's description of the event states: ``Without regard for his own safety, Specialist Croft quickly moved to the crashed aircraft and immediately began the necessary medical treatment for [the pilots'] life threatening injuries. He placed himself in harms way through the entire process. His selfless act and professional actions were those of a highly skilled and dedicated medic.'' It is with great honor that I share Specialist Croft's tremendous accomplishments with my colleagues. He is a true patriot, and America is deeply grateful for his service.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I recognize the leadership and many achievements of South Dakota Secretary of Social Services James Ellenbecker. Secretary Ellenbecker embodies the highest qualities of public service and has deservedly earned the respect and admiration of all those who have had the opportunity to work with him. After 35 years of public service, Secretary Ellenbecker is retiring as South Dakota's Secretary of Social Services, leaving behind an extraordinary legacy. Secretary Ellenbecker began his career with the South Dakota government in 1970, and has since dedicated his life to serving the citizens of South Dakota. Working for the State Planning Agency and then the Department of Labor, he ultimately found himself in the Department of Social Services after providing then-Governor Bill Janklow with information he urgently needed late one Friday afternoon. Following their encounter, Governor Janklow appointed James Secretary of Social Services in 1980, a post he has held ever since. During his 25 year tenure as secretary, under the leadership of four different governors, Secretary Ellenbecker played a vital role in enhancing South Dakota's Social Services infrastructure. As head of one of the largest and most complex agencies in the state, he promoted innovations which significantly enhanced its treatment of the elderly, children and single parent families. His influence on South Dakota's 1988 Elderly Initiative resulted in a responsive, efficient, and cost- effective long-term care system for the elderly, thus easing the burdens many families face both financially and emotionally. Under this new plan, more aged residents could live at home and maintain their independence. Secretary Ellenbecker is also responsible for transforming South Dakota's welfare program. As a result of his vision and dedication, South Dakota has one of the most successful child support programs in the country. His strategy improved the lives of countless single parents by holding absent parents financially responsible for their children. Similarly, 67,000 uninsured children in South Dakota gained access to health care as a result of Secretary Ellenbecker's diligent management of South Dakota's medical services program. I had the privilege of working with Secretary Ellenbecker during my years of service in the South Dakota Legislature. Throughout my years in Congress, when constituents contacted my office with issues involving the South Dakota Department of Social Services, I could always rely upon Secretary Ellenbecker to provide a thorough review of the situation and supply a detailed response to my questions and the issues raised by the constituents. I appreciated his willingness to share insight into issues affecting his department and to coordinate briefings with my staff. Numerous South Dakotans and their families have benefited over the years from our working partnership, and I commend his tireless dedication to his agency and to the people of South Dakota. I am honored to share Secretary Ellenbecker's accomplishments with my colleagues, and I publicly commend and thank him for his excellent service to South Dakota. I wish Jim the very best, along with his wife Kathy and their two children, Bradley and Ryon.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, as a Senator who has served in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, in both the majority and the minority in the House and both in the majority and the minority in the Senate, I am distressed at some of the rhetoric and debate that has gone forward relative to the role of the so-called filibuster rule or the nuclear option, as some people refer to it. It is my hope the debate can go forward in a more civil and thoughtful manner than has sometimes been the case up until now. I have served--and it has been an honor to serve--in both bodies. Each of the bodies, the House and the Senate, has a respective and important role to play. One of the factors, however, that most distinguishes the Senate from the other body is the existence of the 60-vote rule, the so-called filibuster rule, which has the consequence of requiring both political parties to come to the center, to have some at least modicum of bipartisanship in the proposals they pursue, the nominees who are considered. That is one of the great strengths of the Senate. I know it frustrates some who would like to see the Senate operate more as the other body does, where a one-vote margin is all that is essentially ever necessary. A rules committee further streamlines things. As a consequence, the other body tends to be and has been over the years most often a far more partisan body than the Senate. The Founders designed the Senate with 6-year terms and a differing basis for selection as a body that would be the more thoughtful, more deliberative, would take the longer view of initiatives that are before the Congress. The Senate plays a very important role. There is too much partisanship in Congress. I have the honor of representing South Dakota, a State some would describe as a dark red State that President Bush won by a large margin this last time. I am very proud of the Republican support that has been extended to me over the years I have had the honor of serving in the House and the Senate. The people of South Dakota are tired and grow weary of the intensity of the partisanship that too often exists in Washington, DC. The people of South Dakota want to see both sides brought together to govern as Americans rather than as Republicans or Democrats. That is not asking too much, for the traditions and the historic rules that have existed in this body that encourage bipartisanship should remain. This notion that somehow in the midst of Congress rules that have been in place for generations should be eliminated and the bipartisan mandate they allow for should be eliminated is a step in the wrong direction. One of the consequences of the 60-vote rule is it takes both parties by the scruff of the neck, brings them together and says: You will have to reach across the aisle and cooperate, coordinate with your colleagues from the other political party, whether or not you like it. That has been a very valuable asset to the Senate and, again, one of the things that distinguishes the debate and deliberation and progress of legislation in the Senate from what transpires with our colleagues in the other body. There is too much division in America today. There is too much partisanship. The rhetoric has grown far too bitter. It has grown far too extreme. What America wants, and what I believe my constituents want, is more governing from the center. Most South Dakotans and most Americans recognize neither party has all the answers, neither party has all the good or bad ideas, and we are governing best when we come together in the political center. That will leave the far left and the far right unhappy. They are unhappy most of the time, anyway. But I do think governing from the center, which the 60-vote rule requires, is one of the great strengths of the Senate. It would be a horrible mistake for this body to discard that bipartisan mandate that rule imposes on this body. A loss of bipartisanship would not only affect the consideration of judges, but the precedent would certainly be in place to affect consideration of all other legislation as well. Keeping in mind that this body, even with that rule in place, has approved some 205 Federal judges nominated by President Bush, has rejected roughly 10, and that we have one of the lowest judicial vacancy rates in American history right now--in fact, about 60 percent of all Federal appellate judges are appointees of Republican administrations over the last number of years--to suggest somehow there is a crisis with judges is a fabrication, frankly. It is simply untrue. Judges are being considered, voted on, approved at a record rate. In fact, all of these judges have had up-or-down votes as opposed, sadly, to the experience during the Clinton administration where some 60 of his nominees never received a hearing or a vote. In this case every nominee has received a vote in committee and on the floor, albeit that vote on the floor is consistent with the 60-vote parliamentary rule of the Senate which does require both sides to come together in the center. Clearly, President Bush can have the approval of 100 percent of his judges. All he has to do is to nominate conservative Republican judges who are part of the conservative mainstream of America, a very broad range of discretion that he has. Those judges will be confirmed, as have the 200 plus who have routinely been confirmed by this body. The Senate does have a constitutional obligation of advice and consent on these lifetime appointments. That is one of the reasons why this issue is so profoundly important, because this is not simply a legislative matter that will come and go and be reconsidered at another time. We are considering the appointments of people to high office for a lifetime. It is imperative the Senate insist that each of these individuals, men and women, be part of the political and judicial mainstream of America, albeit we have a Republican President, and certainly he will nominate conservative Republican judges, as well he ought, and they will be approved in a routine manner as over 200 have already. But there is an importance that the nominees do fall within the political mainstream, and the one test to see to it that is the case is the 60-vote margin rule where no judge, regardless of what their political background or judicial background might be, can be approved unless, in fact, there is some modest bipartisan support, not an overwhelming consensus. Nobody is suggesting a 90-percent rule or 75-percent rule or even the 66-percent rule which used to be the case for filibusters some years ago but that there be a 60-vote margin. I don't think that is asking too much in the name of bipartisanship, in the name of requiring both parties to come together, and in the name of diminishing the level of partisan hardball that characterizes the other body and to some degree has infected the debate and the rhetoric even here in the Senate. Having witnessed the political dynamic in both bodies, having had the honor to serve in both bodies, having been in both the majority and minority, because the rule we are talking about of bipartisanship should prevail regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in the majority or the minority, having witnessed all of that and knowing where my constituents come from in terms of growing weary of the partisanship and the political efforts in Washington, DC, to jam one idea past another without the need for deliberation, without the need for give and take between the two parties, I have to believe we ought to reject the strategies that will play into the hands of the far left or the far right and continue the historic rules that have been in place for the Senate which, in fact, not only encourage but require at least a modest level of bipartisanship and deliberative thinking when we consider legislation or lifetime appointments to the U.S. courts. It is my hope cooler heads will prevail, that the historic rules of this body will prevail, and that the Senate will continue to play the incredibly important and unique role it has throughout 200 years of American history. That is a body where the hot rhetoric of the day is set aside and the two political parties are required to come together, to approach issues in a more thoughtful, more deliberative and bipartisan fashion. We would be a poorer nation, indeed, were it not for that kind of bipartisan mandate that the current rules of the Senate insist upon. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to commend Dakota State University in Madison, SD, for its outstanding commitment to the national security of the United States through Dakota State University's information assurance program. The program has developed important technologies to protect community banks from information breaches, simultaneously training its undergraduate and graduate students to be leaders in this highly technical field. In 2004, DSU was one of 10 universities receiving National Security Agency designation for this bank-focused program and DSU is the only National Center of Academic Excellence in information assurance that tailors its information assurance curriculum to the banking industry. Recent security breaches by information brokers and financial institutions highlight the importance of DSU's work in this area. I believe strongly that the future of information security will include a combination of careful review and oversight of laws, but also looking to security innovators like DSU and other institutions around the country to protect our financial information. As security innovators, graduates and employees of Dakota State University have engineered a new information technology security company called Secure Banking Solutions, SBS. With 93 banks in South Dakota, SBS will soon be able to provide IT security to most of the community banks in my home State, as well as to protect the personal information of the hardworking South Dakotans that bank at those institutions. The Independent Community Bankers of South Dakota and I have encouraged the replication of the SBS model in other States. The security of banking in all of South Dakota has been greatly enhanced by the university's commitment to innovation in the area of IT security, and I thank Dakota State University for its pioneering leadership in this arena.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that codifies an agreement between the City of Rapid City, SD and the Rapid Valley Water Conservancy District for a water service contract. The renegotiated agreement reallocates the costs of the Pactola Dam to better reflect the City's growing need for municipal water supply and the Rapid Valley District's decreasing demand for irrigation. The legislation implements an agreement to improve upon the current municipal, industrial, irrigation, recreation, and wildlife requirements of Rapid City and the Rapid Valley District. It is my hope that this legislation can be quickly approved to facilitate the completion of this contract. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Pactola Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that codifies an agreement between the City of Rapid City, SD and the Rapid Valley Water Conservancy District for a water service contract. The renegotiated agreement reallocates the costs of the Pactola Dam to better reflect the City's growing need for municipal water supply and the Rapid Valley District's decreasing demand for irrigation. The legislation implements an agreement to improve upon the current municipal, industrial, irrigation, recreation, and wildlife requirements of Rapid City and the Rapid Valley District. It is my hope that this legislation can be quickly approved to facilitate the completion of this contract. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Pactola Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on April 30-May 2, 2005, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC, to compete in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution Program. This is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from Spearfish High School will represent the state of South Dakota in this national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The 3-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, develop, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges, who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens. The class from Spearfish High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, DC. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our Government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles that we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. Congratulations to Bethany Baker, Brandon Bentley, Hannah Bucher, Meghan Byrum, Joe Cooch, Jenna Eddy, Elise Foltz, Amber Ginter, Meggan Joachim, Frankelly Martinez Garcia, Lauren Meyers, Jason Nies, Emily Oldekamp, Aly Oswald, Jessica Richey, Lauren Schempf, Lindsay Senden, Janette Sigle, Nick Smith, Brent Swisher, Calli Tetrault, Kaysie Tope, and their teacher, Patrick Gainey. I wish these young constitutional scholars the very best at the We the People national finals.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly recognize the inauguration of Dr. Patrick J. Schloss as the 15th President of Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD. A dedicated scholar, diligent educator and attentive family man, Dr. Schloss certainly deserves this great honor and responsibility. After obtaining both his bachelors degree in special education and his masters degree in counseling from Illinois State University, Patrick went on to earn his doctorate in rehabilitation psychology from the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Schloss is a man of great scholarship and knowledge. A prolific writer and frequent contributor to professional literature, his writings about special education methods relating to vocational education and community integration are studied in colleges and universities throughout the Nation. Prior to joining the faculty of Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania, Dr. Schloss held numerous administrative and academic positions at the University of Missouri and Pennsylvania State University. While at Bloomsburg, he served as assistant vice president and dean of graduate studies from 1994 until 2000, when he was appointed provost and vice president for academic affairs. Under Patrick's direction, Bloomsburg's enrollment not only increased 12 percent, but the university launched its undergraduate engineering and doctoral programs, as well. In addition to his passion for education, Dr. Schloss served as president of the Pennsylvania Association of Graduate Schools, and also held board, committee, and task force appointments on behalf of the Council for Exceptional Children and the Association for Retarded Citizens. It is an honor for me to share Dr. Schloss's accomplishments with my colleagues and to publicly commend him for his extraordinary academic career. Serving as president of Northern State University is an honor he richly deserves, and I am certain he will prove to be a tremendous asset to the university and the entire Aberdeen community. On behalf of all South Dakotans, I would like to congratulate Dr. Schloss and wish him all the best.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of bipartisan National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005. For the last 5 years a devastating drought has forced many families across South Dakota and the United States to make difficult life-changing decisions about their future in agriculture. Many of our Nation's hard-working producers have had to abandon their farms, and the family farm life has been threatened for too many people. I was hopeful that the drought measures I have helped pass in the last 5 years would assist producers in weathering the current drought. With my support, the Senate, and ultimately Congress, agreed to legislation providing either or agriculture disaster assistance packages for 2001-2002 and 2003-2004. While this assistance is greatly appreciated by those suffering from this natural disaster, I am concerned for our future prospects for drought aid. Given the President's reluctance to fund crucial USDA farm bill programs in his proposed fiscal year 2006 budget, his insistence on cannibalizing $3 billion from the Conservation Security Program, CSP to fund the 2003- 2004 package, which should in fact be recognized as an uncapped entitlement provision, and a historically high budgetary deficit, I am concerned at our prospects of securing substantive monies for future disasters. I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to ensure adequate dollars for South Dakota, but we must examine more comprehensive measures for addressing drought. That National Drought Preparedness Act will help us better prepare for future droughts and reduce the need for large ad hoc disaster programs that may cannibalize funds from other agricultural programs. I am fully prepared to support special disaster assistance when it is necessary, but with this act made law, producers, tribes, States, and Federal agencies will be much better prepared for future droughts. This act will do several things that will significantly increase our ability to deal with drought conditions. The bill establishes, in the office of the Secretary of Agriculture, a National Drought Council to oversee the development of a national drought policy action plan. This plan will be the blueprint for dealing with and preparing for drought. The Federal government has plans for dealing with floods and hurricanes, and we need the same kind of plan for the slow, dry disaster that is drought. This bill recognizes drought as the natural disaster it is. The act also creates the National Office of Drought Preparedness. This would be the permanent body that assists the National Drought Council in the formulation and carrying out of the national drought policy action plan. A drought assistance fund will be established by this act, to assist State and local governments in their development and implementation of drought preparedness plans. The act will also provide assistance for the rapid response to wildfires, which is critical to mitigating the effects of a prolonged drought in forested areas, like we have in western South Dakota. Lastly, the act provides for the development of a national drought forecasting and monitoring network, that will help forecast the onset of droughts better and improve reporting on current droughts. I am encouraged by what the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005 has to offer to the farmers and ranchers of our great country. We must treat drought like all other disasters are treated, and take an aggressive stance toward minimizing its effect on communities across America. That is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of bipartisan National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005. For the last 5 years a devastating drought has forced many families across South Dakota and the United States to make difficult life-changing decisions about their future in agriculture. Many of our Nation's hard-working producers have had to abandon their farms, and the family farm life has been threatened for too many people. I was hopeful that the drought measures I have helped pass in the last 5 years would assist producers in weathering the current drought. With my support, the Senate, and ultimately Congress, agreed to legislation providing either or agriculture disaster assistance packages for 2001-2002 and 2003-2004. While this assistance is greatly appreciated by those suffering from this natural disaster, I am concerned for our future prospects for drought aid. Given the President's reluctance to fund crucial USDA farm bill programs in his proposed fiscal year 2006 budget, his insistence on cannibalizing $3 billion from the Conservation Security Program, CSP to fund the 2003- 2004 package, which should in fact be recognized as an uncapped entitlement provision, and a historically high budgetary deficit, I am concerned at our prospects of securing substantive monies for future disasters. I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to ensure adequate dollars for South Dakota, but we must examine more comprehensive measures for addressing drought. That National Drought Preparedness Act will help us better prepare for future droughts and reduce the need for large ad hoc disaster programs that may cannibalize funds from other agricultural programs. I am fully prepared to support special disaster assistance when it is necessary, but with this act made law, producers, tribes, States, and Federal agencies will be much better prepared for future droughts. This act will do several things that will significantly increase our ability to deal with drought conditions. The bill establishes, in the office of the Secretary of Agriculture, a National Drought Council to oversee the development of a national drought policy action plan. This plan will be the blueprint for dealing with and preparing for drought. The Federal government has plans for dealing with floods and hurricanes, and we need the same kind of plan for the slow, dry disaster that is drought. This bill recognizes drought as the natural disaster it is. The act also creates the National Office of Drought Preparedness. This would be the permanent body that assists the National Drought Council in the formulation and carrying out of the national drought policy action plan. A drought assistance fund will be established by this act, to assist State and local governments in their development and implementation of drought preparedness plans. The act will also provide assistance for the rapid response to wildfires, which is critical to mitigating the effects of a prolonged drought in forested areas, like we have in western South Dakota. Lastly, the act provides for the development of a national drought forecasting and monitoring network, that will help forecast the onset of droughts better and improve reporting on current droughts. I am encouraged by what the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005 has to offer to the farmers and ranchers of our great country. We must treat drought like all other disasters are treated, and take an aggressive stance toward minimizing its effect on communities across America. That is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that rural America's aviation network benefits from the same level of service and safety as America's busiest airports. Whether moving products and services as part of the global economy, or shepherding sick patients for medical care, rural communities require the same basic air infrastructure network. By ensuring that Flight Service Stations remain in rural areas, general aviation pilots will continue to be able to serve regions that may otherwise be neglected. Flight Service Stations currently provide general aviation pilots with weather briefings, temporary flight restrictions, emergency information, and aid in search and rescue situations. Flight Service Station Specialists use their expertise of regional weather, landscape, and flight conditions to ensure pilots reach their destinations safely. Their work has kept general aviation running smoothly and has literally saved lives. On February 1, 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration announced that operations conducted by Flight Service Stations would be performed by a private contractor. Under the Administration's proposal, the contractor will eliminate 38 of the 58 stations across the country. Work currently conducted by these stations will then be done by employees located in the remaining 20 stations. The Federal Aviation Administration's proposal will lead to decreased safety for pilots of small planes because they will no longer be talking to personnel familiar with regional weather and topography. The consolidated system will strain service capability because fewer employees will be responsible for a growing system of general air traffic. The proposed plan will be especially harmful to rural areas that more heavily rely upon smaller aircraft. The Federal Aviation Safety Security Act would ensure that these facilities can continue to preserve and protect general aviation in the United States. This legislation is supported by a large number of general aviation pilots and others who depend on their regional Flight Service Station. The bill already enjoys significant bipartisan support, and I will continue to work with members of both parties to preserve aviation safety. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Federal Aviation Safety Security Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that rural America's aviation network benefits from the same level of service and safety as America's busiest airports. Whether moving products and services as part of the global economy, or shepherding sick patients for medical care, rural communities require the same basic air infrastructure network. By ensuring that Flight Service Stations remain in rural areas, general aviation pilots will continue to be able to serve regions that may otherwise be neglected. Flight Service Stations currently provide general aviation pilots with weather briefings, temporary flight restrictions, emergency information, and aid in search and rescue situations. Flight Service Station Specialists use their expertise of regional weather, landscape, and flight conditions to ensure pilots reach their destinations safely. Their work has kept general aviation running smoothly and has literally saved lives. On February 1, 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration announced that operations conducted by Flight Service Stations would be performed by a private contractor. Under the Administration's proposal, the contractor will eliminate 38 of the 58 stations across the country. Work currently conducted by these stations will then be done by employees located in the remaining 20 stations. The Federal Aviation Administration's proposal will lead to decreased safety for pilots of small planes because they will no longer be talking to personnel familiar with regional weather and topography. The consolidated system will strain service capability because fewer employees will be responsible for a growing system of general air traffic. The proposed plan will be especially harmful to rural areas that more heavily rely upon smaller aircraft. The Federal Aviation Safety Security Act would ensure that these facilities can continue to preserve and protect general aviation in the United States. This legislation is supported by a large number of general aviation pilots and others who depend on their regional Flight Service Station. The bill already enjoys significant bipartisan support, and I will continue to work with members of both parties to preserve aviation safety. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Federal Aviation Safety Security Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss devastating cuts to Medicaid included the fiscal year 2006 budget we are now debating. Medicaid has been the most successful health care safety net program our nation has ever established, protecting low-income children, the elderly and the disabled from being uninsured. Fifty-two million people count on this program and without it, these individuals would be forced to seek out care in our emergency rooms, and would likely mean that many low-income seniors in nursing homes would not have appropriate care in older age. As you know, the budget before us includes $14 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program over the next 5 years. This is a startling number and represents the single largest cut to any program in this budget. Fourteen billion in cuts is almost as large as the entire State Health Insurance Program or SCHIP budget for the next 3 years, and equal to Federal Medicaid spending in six mid-sized States or 18 small States. If we allow this reconciliation instruction to move forward, it will have very harmful effects for those most in need all across America. These reductions will force states to cut services as well as cut access entirely for certain populations. In my home State of South Dakota, it is estimated that these Medicaid cuts could cause a loss of coverage for 800 elderly people. These are largely individuals with severe chronic illnesses that require nursing home care. It will also cut coverage for 4,000 children in South Dakota by the end of 2010; children who would have otherwise been covered under the program if the Federal dollars would continue. These are the most vulnerable citizens in my State whose families have likely sold the farm and exhausted all of their resources just to pay for health care. They are the sickest and the poorest, and this budget tells them that we do not care. Beyond the devastating effect on those most in need, the budget cuts will inappropriately shift the entire burden of care to cash-strapped States that are already struggling with growing health care costs and will not be able to afford these additional burdens. More than half of all States will see their Federal matching rates decline in 2006 and they will also be required to start making payments back to the Federal Government to finance the new Medicare drug coverage for dual eligibles or those people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Additional Medicaid burdens are of great concern to me and the majority of Governors have also expressed their opposition to the current Medicaid budget. These budget cuts not only mean that many South Dakotans will lose State coverage, but it also means that the State will have to cut services for those who are lucky enough not to be dropped from the Medicaid program. Cuts in services may mean that people on Medicaid will no longer be able to obtain health services such as breast cancer treatment, rehabilitative care or prescription drugs. The impact of these cuts in care will not just go away because Medicaid stops paying for treatment. Hospitals, health centers and other providers will wind up treating those patients in our emergency rooms and as charity care patients, absorbing those costs. Also, individuals who lose coverage will not have access to preventive care and will likely delay treatment until hospital care is needed. This increases the costs to the system, since a trip to the hospital is going to be much more expensive than if they would have had coverage to go to the doctor or get a prescription drug before getting sick. Costs within the program are rising, but this is not because the Medicaid program is inefficient. The driving force behind rising costs is the result of many things. The surge in costs are due in part to Congress having failed to deal with the millions of low-income workers who are uninsured, and that Medicare does not pay for long-term nursing home care. Census data has revealed that there were 5.1 million more people uninsured in 2003 than in 2000. An unstable economy has left workers with lower incomes and employers dropping health coverage. Statistics show that two-thirds of those losing coverage are in low- income jobs. Because of these access to coverage problems, Medicaid is filling a critical gap that most in our nation support--ensuring kids have basic medical care, providing low-income working families with health coverage that keeps them healthy and productive, and making sure that seniors have the care they need in old age. These factors do not make the case for cuts to Medicaid, but rather indicate that we should be doing more to expand the program for those who lack coverage. The SCHIP program was a great example of that, and we should be doing more to pull those that are low-income and uninsured under this umbrella. The overall rise in health care costs are also contributing to the increased expenses in Medicaid. New technologies and the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs are sending all health care costs through the roof. Under these circumstances, Medicaid's spending per enrollee has actually been more efficient than other health care payors. The program spending has increased more slowly than private insurance spending and Medicare. More and more poor people will need programs like Medicaid if the trends continue as they have in recent years. We should be working on solutions to reduce the costs of health care in the United States, but cutting Medicaid is not the answer. We need to closely examine our care system broadly and reduce costs by promoting the use of information technology in health, emphasizing prevention techniques that keep people healthy, and reducing the costs of prescription drugs. It will also be crucial that we closely examine our long-term care system, which accounts for almost one-third of Medicaid spending and will likely increase as our senior population increases in numbers. This is where the discussion must turn to, rather than placing the blame on the Medicaid program which has been a cost efficient, successful program ensuring coverage for millions of Americans most in need. We will be voting soon on an important amendment offered by Senators Smith and Bingaman, as well as many others, that will strike the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee for Medicaid, and strike the function that directs that committee to cut the $14 billion for that program. In its place, the amendment will create a $1.5 million reserve fund to create a Medicaid Commission. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. We do have a need to address the skyrocketing costs of our Federal health care programs and health care in general, and I think the establishment of a commission on Medicaid is a smart way to begin to find solutions. I will support this amendment and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. We need to get our priorities straight with this budget. A budget that proposes to cut billions in health care coverage for our most vulnerable citizens while at the same time including $23 billion in tax cuts for capital gains and dividends is not a budget that represents my values or the values of the American people. Amendment No. 204

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am encouraged that as a consequence of the strong bipartisan support for increasing the RFS to 8 billion gallons, my colleagues and I can add this bill to a comprehensive energy proposal working through the Senate. Furthermore, as a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues, Chairman Domenici and Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid toward ensuring that the Fuels Security Act of 2005 becomes law. Exhibit 1 March 17, 2005. Re the Fuels Agreement and the Renewable Fuels Standard. Hon. Bill Frist, U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Minority Leader, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid: The undersigned organizations are writing to express our strong support for S. 650, legislation establishing a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) growing to 8 billion gallons by 2012. This landmark legislation would increase the nation's energy independence, protect air and water quality, provide increased flexibility for refiners, and stimulate rural economies through the increased production of domestic, renewable fuels. The ethanol and biodiesel industries have undergone unprecedented growth over the past several years. In fact, the U.S. currently has the capacity to produce more than 3.7 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel, and plants under construction will add an additional 700 million gallons of capacity by the end of the year. Most of this growth has been in farmer-owned plants, which taken as a whole, now represent the single largest producer in the country. Clearly, the renewable fuels industry is poised to make a significant contribution to this nation's energy supply. With rising crude oil and gasoline prices hurting consumers, and record petroleum imports exacerbating our trade imbalance and slowing economic growth, we need to be maximizing the production and use of domestic renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Enacting an RFS that would provide a market of 8 billion gallons by 2012 demonstrates a firm commitment to reducing this nation's foreign oil dependence while providing a significant impact to the American economy. Specifically (in 2005 dollars): The production and use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol, biodiesel and other renewable fuels by 2012 will displace over 2 billion barrels of crude oil and reduce the outflow of dollars largely to foreign oil producers by $64.1 billion between 2005 and 2012. As a result of the RFS, America's dependence on imported oil will be reduced from an estimated 68 percent to 62 percent. The renewable fuels sector will spend an estimated $6 billion to build 4.3 billion gallons of new ethanol and biodiesel capacity between 2005 and 2012. The renewable fuels sector will spend nearly $70 billion on goods and services required to produce 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012. Purchases of corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, corn stover and wheat straw, alone will total $43 billion between 2005 and 2012. The combination of this direct spending and the indirect impacts of those dollars circulating throughout the economy will: Add nearly $200 billion to GDP between 2005 and 2012. Generate an additional $43 billion of household income for all Americans between 2005 and 2012, and Create as many as 234,840 new jobs in all sectors of the economy by 2012. We urge your support of this important bill as the Congress considers comprehensive energy policy legislation. The RFS is a vital and necessary component of any energy policy designed to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. Sincerely, Renewable Fuels Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; National Corn Growers Association; American Soybean Association; National Grain Sorghum Producers; American Coalition for Ethanol; National Biodiesel Board; Energy Future Coalition; Biotechnology Industry Organization; New Uses Council; National Sunflower Association; United States Canola Association; Ethanol Producers & Consumers; Environmental & Energy Study Institute.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join twenty of my Senate colleagues in introducing landmark legislation that will double the amount of ethanol used in motor fuel by 2012. The Fuels Security Act of 2005 establishes a renewable fuels standard program beginning with 4 billion gallons in 2006 and culminating in 8 billion gallons in 2012--nearly a 40 percent increase from legislation that I first sponsored in 2003. The legislation creates a functioning and flexible market for ethanol produced from South Dakota's farmer- owned plants. South Dakota has more farmer-owned ethanol plants than any other State, and South Dakota producers deliver a greater percentage of corn for ethanol production than any neighboring State. Revising and strengthening the proposed RFS is important to South Dakota producers and our value-added economy. In 2004, the domestic ethanol industry produced a record 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol and an additional 700 million gallons of capacity will be added in 2005. Because of the strong increase in ethanol production over the last few years it is necessary to revisit and revise the proposed RFS to more accurately reflect the growing market. Increasing the RFS schedule to 8 billion gallons in 2012 ensures market stability and encourages investment in ethanol plants and transportation infrastructure. Ethanol stands out as an agriculture sector that is resisting the move toward greater consolidation and concentration. The Fuels Security Act of 2005 goes a long way toward ensuring that farmers retain market power and will continue to play a leading role in renewable energy production. While adjusting the schedule to match growth is crucial, equally important is ensuring that the schedule and standard are not eroded by a permissive credit program or inconsistent and suspect waiver authority provisions. To that end, the Fuels Security Act of 2005 creates a one-year credit program to provide flexibility to blenders without diluting the RFS requirement. An ill-defined or open-ended credit program will cause investors to hedge against investing in new ethanol facilities as the guarantee of an increased baseline is weakened through multi-year credit trading language. Additionally, the bill includes an effective tool to ensure that after 2012, America's renewable fuel market does not diminish and capacity and production match demand. The bill directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure the RFS schedule grows with the overall motor vehicle fuel pool after 2013. I am proud to stand with over a dozen agriculture, clean energy and renewable fuels organizations that support this legislation. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that a letter written by over a dozen agriculture and energy groups be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am encouraged that as a consequence of the strong bipartisan support for increasing the RFS to 8 billion gallons, my colleagues and I can add this bill to a comprehensive energy proposal working through the Senate. Furthermore, as a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues, Chairman Domenici and Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid toward ensuring that the Fuels Security Act of 2005 becomes law. Exhibit 1 March 17, 2005. Re the Fuels Agreement and the Renewable Fuels Standard. Hon. Bill Frist, U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Minority Leader, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid: The undersigned organizations are writing to express our strong support for S. 650, legislation establishing a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) growing to 8 billion gallons by 2012. This landmark legislation would increase the nation's energy independence, protect air and water quality, provide increased flexibility for refiners, and stimulate rural economies through the increased production of domestic, renewable fuels. The ethanol and biodiesel industries have undergone unprecedented growth over the past several years. In fact, the U.S. currently has the capacity to produce more than 3.7 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel, and plants under construction will add an additional 700 million gallons of capacity by the end of the year. Most of this growth has been in farmer-owned plants, which taken as a whole, now represent the single largest producer in the country. Clearly, the renewable fuels industry is poised to make a significant contribution to this nation's energy supply. With rising crude oil and gasoline prices hurting consumers, and record petroleum imports exacerbating our trade imbalance and slowing economic growth, we need to be maximizing the production and use of domestic renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Enacting an RFS that would provide a market of 8 billion gallons by 2012 demonstrates a firm commitment to reducing this nation's foreign oil dependence while providing a significant impact to the American economy. Specifically (in 2005 dollars): The production and use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol, biodiesel and other renewable fuels by 2012 will displace over 2 billion barrels of crude oil and reduce the outflow of dollars largely to foreign oil producers by $64.1 billion between 2005 and 2012. As a result of the RFS, America's dependence on imported oil will be reduced from an estimated 68 percent to 62 percent. The renewable fuels sector will spend an estimated $6 billion to build 4.3 billion gallons of new ethanol and biodiesel capacity between 2005 and 2012. The renewable fuels sector will spend nearly $70 billion on goods and services required to produce 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012. Purchases of corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, corn stover and wheat straw, alone will total $43 billion between 2005 and 2012. The combination of this direct spending and the indirect impacts of those dollars circulating throughout the economy will: Add nearly $200 billion to GDP between 2005 and 2012. Generate an additional $43 billion of household income for all Americans between 2005 and 2012, and Create as many as 234,840 new jobs in all sectors of the economy by 2012. We urge your support of this important bill as the Congress considers comprehensive energy policy legislation. The RFS is a vital and necessary component of any energy policy designed to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. Sincerely, Renewable Fuels Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; National Corn Growers Association; American Soybean Association; National Grain Sorghum Producers; American Coalition for Ethanol; National Biodiesel Board; Energy Future Coalition; Biotechnology Industry Organization; New Uses Council; National Sunflower Association; United States Canola Association; Ethanol Producers & Consumers; Environmental & Energy Study Institute.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join twenty of my Senate colleagues in introducing landmark legislation that will double the amount of ethanol used in motor fuel by 2012. The Fuels Security Act of 2005 establishes a renewable fuels standard program beginning with 4 billion gallons in 2006 and culminating in 8 billion gallons in 2012--nearly a 40 percent increase from legislation that I first sponsored in 2003. The legislation creates a functioning and flexible market for ethanol produced from South Dakota's farmer- owned plants. South Dakota has more farmer-owned ethanol plants than any other State, and South Dakota producers deliver a greater percentage of corn for ethanol production than any neighboring State. Revising and strengthening the proposed RFS is important to South Dakota producers and our value-added economy. In 2004, the domestic ethanol industry produced a record 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol and an additional 700 million gallons of capacity will be added in 2005. Because of the strong increase in ethanol production over the last few years it is necessary to revisit and revise the proposed RFS to more accurately reflect the growing market. Increasing the RFS schedule to 8 billion gallons in 2012 ensures market stability and encourages investment in ethanol plants and transportation infrastructure. Ethanol stands out as an agriculture sector that is resisting the move toward greater consolidation and concentration. The Fuels Security Act of 2005 goes a long way toward ensuring that farmers retain market power and will continue to play a leading role in renewable energy production. While adjusting the schedule to match growth is crucial, equally important is ensuring that the schedule and standard are not eroded by a permissive credit program or inconsistent and suspect waiver authority provisions. To that end, the Fuels Security Act of 2005 creates a one-year credit program to provide flexibility to blenders without diluting the RFS requirement. An ill-defined or open-ended credit program will cause investors to hedge against investing in new ethanol facilities as the guarantee of an increased baseline is weakened through multi-year credit trading language. Additionally, the bill includes an effective tool to ensure that after 2012, America's renewable fuel market does not diminish and capacity and production match demand. The bill directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure the RFS schedule grows with the overall motor vehicle fuel pool after 2013. I am proud to stand with over a dozen agriculture, clean energy and renewable fuels organizations that support this legislation. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that a letter written by over a dozen agriculture and energy groups be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2005. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a commemorative coin (500,000) honoring the millions of veterans of the United States Armed Forces who were disabled while serving our country. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to help cover the costs of building the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in Washington, DC. The mint date is scheduled for January 1, 2010. In its own distinctive way, the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial will also allow the American people to show their appreciation to those who died defending freedom by honoring the disabled veterans who still live among us. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, to recognize the special sacrifices that disabled veterans have made to this country. It has been said that ``poor is the Nation which has no heroes. Poorer still is the Nation which has them, but forgets.'' The creation of this memorial will ensure that we, as a Nation, do not forget those who have been forever changed in service to our country. The three-acre site for the Memorial is located on Washington Avenue at 2nd Street, SW., across from the U.S. Botanic Gardens, and in full view of the U.S. Capitol building. Federal legislation for the Memorial, Public Law 106-348, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 24, 2000. Sponsors included Senator John McCain, Senator Max Cleland, Congressman Sam Johnson, and Congressman Jack Murtha. The National Capital Planning Commission unanimously approved the Capitol Hill location on October 10, 2001. We have an obligation to assure that the men and women who each day endure the costs of freedom are never forgotten. The American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2005 will honor these veterans and help fund the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial. The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation was co-founded in 1996 by the Lois Pope Life Foundation and the Disabled American Veterans. Lois Pope, one of America's leading philanthropists, is the founder and President of the Lois Pope Leaders in Furthering Education Foundation. In addition to supporting veterans programs, this organization provides awards for medical research, scholarships, and summer camp programs. Formed in 1920, the Disabled American Veterans is a nonprofit organization representing America's disabled veterans, their families, and survivors. The drive to build the Memorial, which is scheduled for completion within the next several years, is well under way, but has a long way to go. Prominent national figures including Retired Army General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Poet Laureate Dr. Maya Angelou, and New York Giants star defensive end Michael Strahan are lending their support to this effort. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting America's disabled veterans with this important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2005. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a commemorative coin (500,000) honoring the millions of veterans of the United States Armed Forces who were disabled while serving our country. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to help cover the costs of building the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in Washington, DC. The mint date is scheduled for January 1, 2010. In its own distinctive way, the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial will also allow the American people to show their appreciation to those who died defending freedom by honoring the disabled veterans who still live among us. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, to recognize the special sacrifices that disabled veterans have made to this country. It has been said that ``poor is the Nation which has no heroes. Poorer still is the Nation which has them, but forgets.'' The creation of this memorial will ensure that we, as a Nation, do not forget those who have been forever changed in service to our country. The three-acre site for the Memorial is located on Washington Avenue at 2nd Street, SW., across from the U.S. Botanic Gardens, and in full view of the U.S. Capitol building. Federal legislation for the Memorial, Public Law 106-348, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 24, 2000. Sponsors included Senator John McCain, Senator Max Cleland, Congressman Sam Johnson, and Congressman Jack Murtha. The National Capital Planning Commission unanimously approved the Capitol Hill location on October 10, 2001. We have an obligation to assure that the men and women who each day endure the costs of freedom are never forgotten. The American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2005 will honor these veterans and help fund the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial. The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation was co-founded in 1996 by the Lois Pope Life Foundation and the Disabled American Veterans. Lois Pope, one of America's leading philanthropists, is the founder and President of the Lois Pope Leaders in Furthering Education Foundation. In addition to supporting veterans programs, this organization provides awards for medical research, scholarships, and summer camp programs. Formed in 1920, the Disabled American Veterans is a nonprofit organization representing America's disabled veterans, their families, and survivors. The drive to build the Memorial, which is scheduled for completion within the next several years, is well under way, but has a long way to go. Prominent national figures including Retired Army General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Poet Laureate Dr. Maya Angelou, and New York Giants star defensive end Michael Strahan are lending their support to this effort. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting America's disabled veterans with this important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Vermillion High School class of 1965, of which I am a member, will be celebrating its 40th reunion this summer in Vermillion, SD and will be paying tribute to former VHS Principal Cliff Manley with the unveiling of a handsome plaque in his honor. Ms. Michelle Rydell, the editor of the Vermillion High School newspaper, ``The Vermillionaire,'' recently wrote an excellent column in that newspaper about the class of 1965 and the extraordinary career of Cliff Manley. I ask that this article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Vermillionaire] Class of 1965 Pays Tribute (By Michelle Rydell) ``When we were young and green, you tried to bend us in the right direction. Now that we are old and bent, we look at the path you lit and say, `Thank you, Mr. Manley, for helping us set our course. You made a difference.' '' It is with fond remembrance that the class of 1965 dedicates these words to former Vermillion High School principal, Clifford Manley. Manley was not simply an authoritative figure--he was a friend to all students. VHS alumni remember him as someone with a firm hand yet a soft heart. According to former students, he had a sense of humor that shone through even when he had to be firm with one of his students. He was very personable with both his peers and those under him. According to one class member, ``Mr. Manley loved all of his students. Of course, there was still a degree of fear when we had to go to the principal's office, But he loved kids--he was a great man.'' They also remember him as someone who was always present for extra-curricular activities and who loved watching sports. A former coach himself, Manley made it an objective to support not only the school but his students as well. It if perhaps for his dedication that he is most well-known. As principal, Manley did everything from teaching to coaching, and most importantly, serving as a mentor and role model for his students. Manley's service and dedication is the reason the class of 1965 (which, incidentally, was the last class to graduate from the old Vermillion High School) has dedicated a plaque in remembrance of is gracious spirit. The plaque, featuring a picture of Manley set against a picture of the old high school and decorated with red birds to signify the class' ever-present Tanager pride, will be hung in the high school in the coming month. The plaque had recently been hanging in the Sioux Valley Dakota Gardens, where Manley's wife Helen now lives. The plaque was displayed at the Dakota Gardens in order that Helen's children and friends might get the opportunity to see it during Christmas, but now that the holidays are over Helen is giving the plaque to the high school to display. The plaque will stay in the school as a lasting tribute to the man who not only taught his students as a biology teacher and principal, but a man who inspired them on a personal level as well. VHS students will be some of the first people to see the plaque. The plaque is designated to be revealed at the class of 1965's 40th reunion, which will be occurring this coming summer. The reunion, therefore, will be not only be a time of fellowship for former students to rediscover their classmates, but it will also be a time for students to remember the principal who had such an impact on so many students' lives and take a moment to reflect on their appreciation for his service. It is hard to find those special people in life who make such an impression that after forty years they are still considered memorable and special. Yet many agree that Manley was such a person. His dedication to Vermillion High School has been remembered and appreciated throughout the decades, and despite the fact that he has since passed away, he is not forgotten. His works live on through the school and through the lives of the many he has touched. It's not always easy to be a disciplinarian and friend, yet Manley managed to do both. As a result, he is remembered not only as a loving husband, father and grandfather, but also as a beloved principal, mentor and friend.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor and appreciation that I recognize the leadership and the many achievements of Mr. Steve Metli. Steve will soon retire from his post as city planner for the city of Sioux Falls, SD, a position he has held since 1974. He embodies the highest qualities of public service and has aptly earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues and leaders throughout South Dakota. I am proud to claim Steve as a friend. Steve Metli consistently addressed challenges with determination and foresight which significantly improved the strength of the local economy and the quality of life in Sioux Falls and thus expanded opportunities for all South Dakotans. His success is rooted in enthusiasm, vision, leadership, and progressive South Dakota values that will undoubtedly continue to echo in the growth and prosperity of the entire region for many years to come. In 1974, Mayor Rick Knobe appointed him to head an overburdened four- person planning and zoning staff. Since that time, the city has swelled in population from about 75,000 to over 141,000 people, and Sioux Falls has become a major regional center for health, education, culture, recreation, and job growth. Steve now oversees the city departments of planning, transit, building services, media services, and arena, airport, convention center, and Washington Pavilion. Steve Metli's fortitude and resolve is evident in his private life as well as his public service. As an adult, he has survived three bouts with cancer, two changes in the form of city government, and the administrations of five mayors--Rick Knobe, Joe Cooper, Jack White, Gary Hanson, and Dave Munson. He devoted significant attention to the Big Sioux River greenway project and on expanding the city's park system, which now consists of 76 parks covering 2,600 acres. He has sought to reinvigorate and revitalize the downtown community. His vision of Sioux Falls downtown centers on the beautiful natural resource of the Big Sioux River. He led development of the city's growth management plans, which include infrastructure direction as well as parks, schools, and fire services. His vision of the Phillips to the Falls project was recently completed and he stood at the ribbon cutting with the pride of a parent whose child achieved a long-time dream and accomplishment. He has developed plans for the Big Sioux River Greenway, Falls Park and Downtown Development, and served as project manager for the construction of the Sioux Falls Convention Center. I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with Steve. His leadership and vision were critical to the successful growth of the Sioux Falls region. National publications have consistently recognized Sioux Falls as among the best communities of its size in which to live and do business. I am proud to recognize Steve Metli's critically important contributions to the success of the City of Sioux Falls, SD, and to our entire State. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his leadership on this crucial issue before the Senate today. I rise to speak on an issue of enormous significance to consumers, producers, and ranchers in my home State of South Dakota and all across America. The U.S. border is scheduled to be thrown open on March 7, 2005, to Canadian live cattle and other assorted bovine products. While the rule was modified to ensure that live cattle and beef imports come from animals under 30 months of age, which is a modestly helpful adjustment, I retain profound concerns about the lack of scientific basis for the decision to throw open the border and feel that the timing of this administration decision could not possibly be worse for consumers and producers alike. We have seen four instances of BSE in cattle of Canadian origin, while the United States has not experienced even one indigenous case. In fact, two of these cases were detected after the Department of Agriculture released their final rule. I think those numbers become even more troubling when we compare the annual slaughter populations or total animals slaughtered in that time frame. There is an overwhelming difference when our neighbors to the north slaughter roughly less than 10 percent of the U.S. slaughter population and yet they have all of the indigenous BSE. I am concerned that the Department of Agriculture's rule is not based all on sound science, and I agree, science ought to be the determining factor. The USDA has chosen instead to adopt weaker standards in their final rule. Animals entering the United States will not and cannot be tested for BSE and there are no safeguards available to United States producers to relieve the effect of the millions of Canadian cattle lined up at our border. The final rule establishes minimal-risk regions for BSE and recognizes Canada as a minimal-risk region. However, that rule fails to recognize the internationally accepted standards set forth by the OIE, or World Organization for Animal Health, for minimal-risk regions, which are the only recognized standards that are accepted on a worldwide basis. Transmission of BSE is, in fact, still unclear and uncertain. Maintaining segregation of the Canadian and American herds to the largest extent possible is the only scientifically sound approach, and USDA's final rule only seeks to mix these cattle populations. The Bush administration and a Japanese Government panel have discussed certain parameters for importation of American beef. Namely, imported products would be from animals age verified at under 20 months of age and adhere to a certain grade of meat. These criteria were set because of Japanese consumer concerns. I fail to see how allowing the importation of Canadian cattle and products from cattle under 30 months of age into the United States, 10 months older than American beef that could be potentially exported to Japan, can possibly be beneficial for regaining consumer confidence in Japan or for maintaining consumer confidence in the United States. At one point, we were exporting about 10 percent of our beef to foreign nations, the Japanese being the largest buyer of American beef abroad. The Japanese, because of their own experiences with mad cow disease and human disease in that nation, are understandably very concerned that if they buy beef from another country, they want that beef to, in fact, come from a non-BSE country. It is the United States that jeopardizes our export market by throwing open the doors to a huge tidal wave of Canadian animals into the United States, mixing the whole herds together and then selling that export product or attempting to sell that without being able to identify whether we are, in fact, selling Canadian product or American product to the Japanese or anyone else. It is no wonder that throwing open this border is going to further jeopardize what is already a difficult circumstance for American exporters. Then for American producers, they wind up with a double whammy. The Canadian import into the United States is roughly equivalent to about 10 percent of our herd, while we lose and further jeopardize an export market that had been 10 percent of our herd. That is a 20-percent swing jeopardizing consumer confidence in the United States and having the potential to have devastatingly negative consequences for livestock producers in America. I think the time is overdue, and USDA should spend more time being concerned about American livestock producers and a little less time being concerned about the viability of Canadian livestock producers, given the kind of public health and the export consequences this opening the border will entail. We lost a $1.7 billion export market when Japan shut their borders, and what we need is consistent leadership and guidance from the USDA that recognizes we ought to abide by internationally accepted standards for minimal risk and that a premature opening of that Canadian border not only will serve to undermine consumer confidence in America but will further jeopardize our export market abroad. I believe the Japanese and other countries would love to buy American beef, but they want to know it is American beef that they are buying and not beef that has simply been funneled through our country from BSE-infected nations. USDA's decision is not only an economic threat for the viability of our rural communities, but it is also a consumer choice issue. Consumer groups have repeatedly voiced concern over this final rule. USDA is accountable and obligated to ensure that our consumers and ranchers are protected, which means keeping our borders closed for now. USDA has not been working for American consumers, ranchers, and producers with this final rule. There are several steps that should be taken before the Department of Agriculture should even consider opening our border with Canada, and country-of-origin labeling is one of those steps. I have long advocated a mandatory country-of-origin labeling program. The administration delayed COOL for 2 years during closed-door consideration of the 2004 Omnibus appropriations measure. A mandatory country-of-origin labeling program for beef is now not scheduled to be implemented until September 30, 2006. Yet, even lacking that ability of consumers to make knowing choices about the origins of the meat they serve their family, USDA would open the borders to a cattle population that poses a significant risk without even ensuring consumer choice in the grocery store aisle to buy American beef. I introduced bipartisan legislation to ensure that Canadian beef and cattle could not come across the border until country-of-origin labeling is implemented because that is simply the right thing to do, and I am pleased that we have bipartisan support for that measure. Because USDA insists on plowing ahead with an outrageously ill-timed decision, congressional action is required and we have a congressional resolution of disapproval to consider. An ample number of my Senate colleagues felt this opening the border rule should be set aside and chose to sign their names on the petition to do so. The vote on this resolution is an opportunity to stop a flawed course of action, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution of disapproval. It is crucial that USDA act in a responsible manner and revoke the final rule immediately. I am hopeful the administration will recognize the message this body will send today about the severity and the urgency of this situation. We need America to side with the best science on the Canadian border. We need America to be prudent relative to the enormous risk to both the livestock economy and the public health in America and the jeopardy of opening the border to our potential export market for beef. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting passage of this resolution of disapproval and to send a strong bipartisan message to USDA and to the White House to reverse course, to allow greater time for the best science to determine what in fact is happening in Canada relative to BSE, relative to their feed regime, and to give us an opportunity to be assured we are not endangering either our economy or the public health in the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to publicly recognize South Dakota's Women in Science Conference that is taking place March 7-11, 2005. Hosted by the National Weather Service, this conference introduces junior and senior high school females to the multitude of opportunities available to women in science- and math-related occupations. Studies indicate that, while females thrive in science and mathematics in grade school, far too frequently female students lose interest in these subjects by the time they reach graduation. As Kristine Thompson, a geologist and curator of the Mammoth Site's In-Situ Bonebed notes, ``In the past, many girls and young women with an interest in science and math often were redirected to other fields. Although women account for half of the work force, they constitute less than 20 percent of scientists.'' Consequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's, NOAA, National Weather Service forecast offices in Aberdeen, Rapid City, and Sioux Falls, in conjunction with local and State agencies, schools, and businesses, are cohosting Women in Science conferences throughout South Dakota. These symposiums, created 5 years ago by the Aberdeen National Weather Service, are designed to foster personal connections between accomplished professional women scientists and female students. The Women in Science Conference creates a unique forum where successful female scholars and professionals meet and hopefully inspire young women to continue developing and cultivating their interests in the natural and physical sciences. To demonstrate the significance of these events, Governor Mike Rounds, by Executive Proclamation, declared this week ``Women in Science Week in South Dakota.'' Among the notable guests featured throughout the week is keynote speaker Karen Stoos. Karen is a native of Hoven, SD, and is currently a biologist at the Genetics and Molecular Biology Branch of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, MD. Other presenters' areas of expertise span the fields of geology, animal science, engineering, medicine, and metrology. Additionally, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Weather Service, and the Girl Scouts will have exhibits and representatives in attendance. More than 1,000 seventh through twelfth-grade students and teachers are already registered to attend. I am proud to have the opportunity to share with my colleagues this exciting and significant series of events, and I am very pleased that the conference's efforts are being publicly honored and celebrated. I strongly commend the hard work and dedication of the National Weather Service and all of the sponsors of the Women in Science Conference, as their contributions will positively impact the lives of so many young women in South Dakota.