Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly thank Stephen R. Myers for his 32 years as chief investment officer of the South Dakota Investment Council. Mr. Myers has served with distinction as the state investment officer for the State of South Dakota since September 11, 1972. He will retire in January to spend more time with his wife, Mary Lynn. The South Dakota Legislature created the investment council in 1971 to manage seven funds, including assets from the State's retirement system and the proceeds from tobacco lawsuit damages. Mr. Myers invested $65 million during the first year of the council's existence and had immediate success. In more than three decades the fund has returned an average of 11.2 percent annually, while the capital markets benchmark is only a 10.5-percent annual return. The assets have grown to over $7.2 billion, with returns putting the funds in the top 1 percent of the Nation's pension funds. The returns from the SDIC's investments allow over 65,000 South Dakotans to retire with financial dignity. Mr. Myers is a man of passion and integrity who takes his responsibility to retiring South Dakotans very seriously. As he himself has stated, ``When you're managing other people's money, it simply won't do to have 99 percent integrity.'' Mr. Myers is also humble and quick to give credit to his co-workers and members of the South Dakota State Government for their roles in the SDIC's success. In addition to his role as chief investment officer of the South Dakota Investment Council, Stephen is a co-founder and past president of the South Dakota Investment Society and co-founder and executive committee member of the National Association of State Investment Officers. He also received the National Association of State Investment Officers' Stoddard Award for his significant contribution to the State's public pensions funds. After growing up in Pierre, Mr. Myers attended the University of South Dakota, where he met his future bride. His dedication to and love of the State of South Dakota is evident and has led to investments that have positively impacted every South Dakotan, either directly or indirectly. The State will miss his leadership, and it is with honor that I share his accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly honor and recognize one of South Dakota's favorite sons, Tom Brokaw. He has had an extraordinarily successful career as anchor of NBC Nightly News. During his 21-year reign as anchor, NBC moved from the least watched to the most watched network newscast. Born in Webster, SD, in 1940, Mr. Brokaw attended high school in Yankton, SD, and began his journalism career after graduating from the University of South Dakota in 1962. He was hired by NBC news in 1966. Throughout his tenure at NBC, Mr. Brokaw has gathered an impressive list of accomplishments. In 1987, he was the first American to interview Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, and this exclusive one-on- one from the Kremlin earned him the prestigious Alfred I. duPont Award. Mr. Brokaw was also the first American anchor to interview the Dalai Lama and to report on human rights abuses in Tibet. In 1989, Mr. Brokaw was the only anchor at the scene when the Berlin Wall fell, and in 1995 he was the first anchor to report from the site of the Oklahoma City bombing. He was also the first American anchor to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2000. Mr. Brokaw has reported live from war zones in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. Mr. Brokaw is a highly respected political journalist, having covered every American election since 1968. He anchored all of NBC's political coverage from 1984 through 2004, including primaries, national conventions, and election nights. He has also moderated nine primary and general election debates, including the Presidential debates of 1987 and 1991. In 1997, Mr. Brokaw won his second duPont award for ``Why Can't We Live Together,'' a documentary examining the racial separation within American suburbs. He won his first Peabody award in 1989 for examining American society in his report, ``To Be An American,'' and received another Peabody in 2004 for ``Tom Brokaw Reports: A Question of Fairness,'' which discussed the University of Michigan affirmative action case and the history of affirmative action in the United States. Mr. Brokaw has received seven Emmy awards for reports on China, the 1992 floods in the Midwest, and the 1999 Kosovo conflict, among others. With his 1998 book ``The Greatest Generation,'' Mr. Brokaw became a best selling author. ``The Greatest Generation Speaks,'' ``An Album of Memories,'' and ``A Long Way from Home'' subsequently followed. He has also contributed to The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and Time. Prior to his position as sole anchor for NBC Nightly News, Mr. Brokaw served as Whitehouse Correspondent for NBC from 1973 to 1976, reporting on the Watergate scandal, and from 1976 to 1981 he anchored NBC's ``Today.'' After 38 years with NBC, Tom and his wife Meredith will be moving on to new challenges. Tom and Meredith have never forgotten their South Dakota roots and have returned home with great frequency. Their generous contributions of time and financial assistance to projects in Yankton, at the University of South Dakota, and throughout our State reflects their wonderful spirit of giving and a commitment to an enhanced quality of life for all South Dakotans. It is with great honor that I share his impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that Congress will soon complete it's work on the remaining fiscal year 2005 Appropriations measures. While this bill is not perfect, it represents an important and sincere effort to work in a bipartisan effort to fund the nations goals and priorities. I am, nonetheless, sincerely disappointed that extensive authorization language regarding the Small Business Administration was inappropriately inserted into this important bill. The inclusion of this language is a deliberate and deceptive effort to circumvent the legislative process. It prevents honest and important debate about important issues that face this Nation, and ultimately it characterizes an enormous failure on behalf of the bill's authors. A quality SBA reauthorization bill could stand on it's merits. The bill's authors would come to the floor and deliberate these matters openly. We would have an honest discussion about how to best serve the entrepreneurial interests of our country. We would pursue a full and complete review of these matters by all Members, and we would seek to enhance and improve the bill in every way we could. Unfortunately, this bill is terribly lacking. So the sponsors have chosen to hide it in this Omnibus Appropriations bill and walk away from their responsibility to the entrepreneurs of America. This is a shameful perversion of the legislative process. However, these matters will become law, not because Congress has debated and passed this bill on behalf of the American people, but because it was attached to a bill funding nearly every spending program that exists in the country. The plight of the first-Americans and reservation communities is among the most glaring and disappointing omissions to this SBA reauthorization legislation. These communities remain among the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised in the nation. They face significant barriers to investment capital, technical assistance, and related entrepreneurial opportunities. The concerns of Native Americans are not addressed in this legislation. Their opportunities will not be enhanced in this legislation. There will be no debate or discussion about initiatives to bring prosperity to their communities. In fact, any reference to Native American and tribal concerns is utterly lacking. This is a disturbing oversight, it is a tremendous failure, and I could not be more disheartened on behalf of those who continue work to overcome the serious challenges they face in bringing prosperity to their communities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I acknowledge a recent accomplishment in my home State of South Dakota. I am pleased to share with this body that the University of South Dakota, Department of Nursing has recently been awarded the prestigious honor of being designated as one of three National League for Nursing, Centers for Excellence in the United States for 2004-2007. The National League for Nursing, Centers of Excellence is designed to distinguish those schools that demonstrate innovation in nursing research and education. The award requires that beneficiaries be committed to continuous quality improvement in their programs. Being acknowledged by the National League in this regard indicates a firm commitment by the school as a whole to pursue and sustain excellence in student learning, faculty development, and nursing education research. I am pleased that the USD Department of Nursing has earned such a high honor, which is clearly the result of the hard work and dedication of the faculty, staff, and students. The associate degree nursing program at the University of South Dakota is a State-funded program that is available at the main campus in Vermillion, SD and campuses in Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Pierre and Watertown. In addition, the program has a distance education partnership with the Good Samaritan Society in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. There are over 525 students enrolled in the nursing program, and 400 of those students are in communities away from the main campus in Vermillion. Such out of state partnerships coincides with the NLN mission to continually advance quality nursing education throughout the three years the school carry the NLN Center of Excellence designation. I am pleased with the USD Nursing School's excellent work in training and mentoring future health care providers. Nurses are an essential component of the health care team and the work of the school will ensure that in the years to come South Dakota will have access to these important health professionals. I look forward to the progress and outcomes that will result from this 3-year designation, and once again commend the hard work of the faculty, staff, and student body who continuously strive towards improving the health and well being of their communities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jimmy Loyless, who has worked as a congressional fellow in my office since January of 2004. On behalf of my staff and the people of South Dakota, I would like to thank Jimmy for his hard work, his dedication, and his considerable contributions to my State and to this great Nation. Jimmy chose a Presidential election year to join our staff to work on banking and tax issues, and he has spent the past year learning about what can and can't happen in the United States Senate in a politically charged atmosphere. Jimmy left the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, his home for the past 24 years, to spend a year learning about the legislative process. And what a year it has been. Jimmy came on board around the time that a series of scandals rocked the mutual fund industry, and almost immediately Jimmy was called upon to sit through a long series of hearings and witnesses. While learning the nitty-gritty of an industry may not be the most glamorous of duties, I am hopeful that at the very least, Jimmy learned a thing or two that may help him manage his own finances as well. In the end, Congress chose to let the Securities and Exchange Commission work through a series of regulatory changes to clean up the industry, but I am confident that the Committee's thorough investigation played a key role in forcing both the SEC and the industry itself to adopt critical changes to protect small investors. Jimmy also got a close-up view of how Congress crafts tax legislation. For the better part of a year, the Senate crafted and debated the Jumpstart our Business Strength Act, S. 1637. Jimmy played a key role for our office, and helped to ensure that key provisions regarding tribal bonding authority were drafted and inserted into the bill. Unfortunately, those provisions, which would have provided critical economic development tools to Native Americans, were stripped out by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives as part of election year politics. This was a particularly demoralizing moment for those of us who care so deeply about South Dakota and Native American communities throughout the United States, yet Jimmy managed to remain optimistic and cheerful about what we can accomplish in the next round. Having a financial services expert on board was indispensable when a large foreign conglomerate, Rabobank, announced its proposed takeover of South Dakota's local Farm Credit Service lender. Jimmy took the lead on analyzing the possible impact on South Dakota farmers, ranchers and lenders, and displayed a deep understanding of the needs of rural America. Jimmy got a bit more than he bargained for when our lead banking staffer went out on maternity leave. Jimmy rose to the occasion, however, and performed admirably on such issues as reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, tracking progress on the Basel II capital accords, evaluating the merits of a controversial preemption ruling by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and developing proposals to reduce, in a responsible manner, the regulatory burden on our nation's financial institutions. In addition, Jimmy has provided key insights into the development of a South Dakota program to develop cybersecurity programs for financial institutions. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention Jimmy's role in our continued efforts to pass comprehensive deposit insurance reform. Although we were hopeful that Jimmy would be the Johnny Damon of deposit insurance reform, the Boston Red Sox managed to win the World Series while our reform bill will live to see yet another Congress. It is my pleasure and honor to stand before the Senate today to thank Jimmy Loyless publicly for his service to the United States Senate. I am pleased he will continue to serve our country by returning to the FDIC, which is lucky to have him.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I express my concerns regarding Federal Aviation Administration proposals to consolidate and outsource the actions currently executed by our Nation's Flight Service Stations. Flight Service Stations are staffed by highly trained specialists and play an important role in providing pilots with valuable weather briefings and enroute communications, as well as facilitating search and rescue services. Each air traffic specialist is trained to understand the rapidly changing weather and geographic patterns of their area. Their expertise has kept flights running smoothly and has literally saved lives. In 1997, the Federal Aviation Administration completed a 16-year effort to consolidate Flight Service Stations, reducing their total number from 318 sites to 61 sites. Since July 2002, the FAA has been developing studies regarding the outsourcing and further consolidation of 58 of the remaining 61 stations, excluding the three stations in Alaska. The FAA has announced that a final decision regarding the fate of these 58 Flight Service Stations will be made before March 17, 2005, possibly as soon as January. I have received letters, phone calls, e-mails, and visits from South Dakotans concerned about the FAA's proposed actions. After the first consolidation in 1997, Flight Service Station sites in Aberdeen, Rapid City, Watertown, and Pierre, SD, were closed. Closure of the Flight Service Station in Huron, the last in South Dakota, would leave pilots isolated from weather updates, emergency assistance, and other vital notices. Weather is the leading cause of aviation accidents and the greatest contributor to fatalities. South Dakota cannot afford the loss of this crucial site. My concerns and the concerns of South Dakotans are echoed in our State's legislature. In February 2004, the South Dakota Legislature approved a concurrent resolution supporting the Flight Service Station in Huron, SD, and encouraging efforts to preserve its functions. Additionally, our Governor has publicly expressed his opposition to the possible outsourcing of operations conducted at the Flight Service Station. Flight safety is paramount and must be the most important factor in any decision that is made. However, it is the concern of many in my State that the proposed action will be detrimental to flight safety. I strongly urge the FAA to reevaluate their plans to allow for the continued effectiveness of Flight Service Stations.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and I be recognized to speak in morning business.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to a group of men and women who have served over the past 26 years as staff for Senator Tom Daschle here in Washington, both in his personal office and those who served him as Democratic leader in the Senate for the past 10 years. Every member of the Senate understands that our success rests, in part, with the men and women we choose to work with us on a daily basis in our offices. I join my colleagues in providing the most heartfelt appreciation for the public service career of Senator Daschle and that appreciation extends to the extraordinary work of his staff here in Washington. The people of South Dakota, members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, and the institution of the Senate have benefitted greatly over the years from the hard work and dedication of Senator Daschle's staff. These men and women worked tirelessly behind the scenes. Whether it be his personal staff or his leadership staff, every single person has been dedicated to making our State a better place to live, and to making our Nation safe and secure. Some of Senator Daschle's staff provided over two decades of dedicated service to the people of South Dakota and came with him to join his leadership staff. Their long hours of service underscored Senator Daschle's commitment to lead our caucus and to serve the people of South Dakota and this Nation unselfishly. Senator Daschle's staff truly reflect the tireless work ethic, dedication, and professionalism that he has exemplified to all the citizens of our State. While each and every member of Senator Daschle's staff is dedicated, committed, and hard working, I think three long-serving members of his Washington staff should be recognized separately. Those senior staff members are Pete Rouse, who served in Senator Daschle's leadership office as chief of staff, Nancy Erickson, his deputy chief of staff in the Capitol, and Laura Petrou, the chief of staff in his personal office. All three of these dedicated individuals served the State of South Dakota and the Senate Democratic Caucus unselfishly and with distinction. It is my hope that all of these valued members of Senator Daschle's staff recognize the importance of their work and the great appreciation that many in South Dakota hold for them for their great service. Senator Daschle's current personal and leadership staff in Washington includes: Aaron Fischbach, Amber Danter, Bart Chilton, Brad Wolters, Brendan Hilley, Brian Hanafin, Chris Bois, Chris VandeVenter, Chris Wagner, Christiana Gallagher, Chuck Marr, Cindy Harris, Clint Highfill, Danny Franklin, Darcell Savage, Denis McDonough, Grant Leslie, Jane Loewenson, Jeff Nussbaum, Jennifer Duck, Jeri Thomson, Jessica Leonard, Jessica Scheufele, Jim Oleske, Joan Huffer, Jody Bennett, Jonathon Lehman, Kate Knudson, Kate Leone, Kelly Fado, Lara Birkes, Larkin Barker, Laura Petrou, Lisa Thimjon, Liz Dahan, Mark Childress, Matthew Varilek, Michelle Singer, Molly Rowley, Nancy Erickson, Nancy Hogan, Nick Bauer, Nick Papas, Pat Griffin, Pat Sarcone, Pete Rouse, Phil Schiliro, Phillip Assmus, Randy DeValk, Reid Cherlin, Sam Mitchell, Sarah Feinberg, Ted Miller, Tim Mitrovich, Todd Webster, Tom McIntyre, and Wizipan Garriott. The work of Senator Daschle and his staff will be remembered by South Dakotans, and all the Senators and staff who have served with them, for many years to come. I want to thank them for their work and service and wish them all the very best.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to bid official farewell to one of my best friends and to one of the greatest Senators ever to grace this body, Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Unsurprisingly, I am sure I have known Tom longer than anyone here. I vividly remember his first campaign for Congress in 1978, the same year I ran for the South Dakota House of Representatives for the first time. We were two young candidates, almost the same age, recent graduates, the same year, of South Dakota colleges. While we were running for very different offices, I felt an immediate bond with him at that time. Tom's first race for Congress was in many ways predictive of the career that would follow. He was then, and still is, the hardest working, most focused person I have ever met in any sphere of my life. That year he knocked on more than 40,000 doors, personally asking South Dakotans for their vote. I can tell you, knocking on 40,000 doors in the middle of a South Dakota winter is a real challenge. Tom looked so young he was once mistaken as the paperboy at one of those doors--a woman asked how much money she owed him. I have a photo I cherish to this day of Tom and me together during that first campaign, both of us looking like we were 14 years old. It makes you wonder how anyone voted for either of us at that time. I remember watching the election returns coming in for Tom's campaign that evening and it didn't look very good, frankly. In fact, when I went to bed that night I was almost certain he had lost. It was only when I woke up that I found Tom was only behind by 50 votes with a recount certain, and as it turned out, he was certified the winner officially by 14 votes out of 130,000 votes cast. Who would have dreamed that such a close victory in South Dakota would have been the beginning of such a distinguished career? In the intervening years, I watched with admiration while Tom's career advanced in the House of Representatives. He was a natural leader, and I do not believe that many who knew him were surprised, in 1986, when he decided to run for the Senate, taking on the same man who, 6 years previously, defeated Senator George McGovern, an institution in our State. It was far from an easy race, but Tom prevailed in the end, and his leaving his House seat opened it for my election that year as well. It was the culmination of those two elections which led to an extremely close working relationship but also to a very close friendship. I have spent the last 18 years working side by side with Tom Daschle. I cannot imagine a better partner with whom to work. He is, as I mentioned earlier, the hardest working person I have ever known. He is also the most patient person I have ever known, as well as unfailingly generous--qualities that served him very well as Senate Democratic leader, an extremely demanding job. There have been fewer than 2,000 Senators who have served our Nation in this body, but there never has been one who cared as much or worked as hard for his home State as Tom Daschle. I can list his many and varied accomplishments but I would be here for hours and that would not serve the purpose of this farewell. It was the Greek philosopher Plato who said, ``The measure of a man is what he does with power.'' And it is that test that so clearly shows the character and the humanity and the values of Tom Daschle. Tom never used the power that he had attained for self-aggrandizement. He used it to build a better South Dakota, and a stronger America. He has always realized that our country works best when people have an opportunity to live up to their own potential, when our children are not shackled by poverty and lack of education, when our people who need a helping hand are given one, and when our older Americans are able to live out the balance of their lives with dignity. The truth is, if it weren't for Tom Daschle and his untiring work, there are children who would not be educated and families who would not be housed and vulnerable people who would be uncared for. Tom Daschle's priorities and values have been the priorities and values of his strong family and his devout faith. It was Jesus Christ who said: Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto Me. And no matter what level of accomplishment and power Tom Daschle attained, he never forgot the ``least of the people'' who Christ referenced. While we will no longer have Tom Daschle to lead us in this body, we are both instructed and warmed by the example he gave us during his 26 years in his congressional career. He and his wife Linda have made an extraordinary team and will always be among the closest of friends to my wife Barbara and me. I will never serve with a man I admire more than Tom Daschle, and it is with very great sadness that I say goodbye to his presence in this body. But more than anyone I have ever served with, or ever will serve with, he has given glory and meaning to the term ``United States Senator.'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit the text of the attached resolution by the South Dakota Farmers Union commemorating 26 years of service by United States Senator Thomas A. Daschle.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to a group of men and women who have served over the past 26 years as staff for Senator Tom Daschle in the State of South Dakota. I join my colleagues in providing the most heartfelt appreciation for the public service career of Senator Daschle and that appreciation extends to the work of his South Dakota staff. The people of South Dakota have benefitted greatly over the years from the work of Senator Daschle's staff. These men and women worked tirelessly behind the scenes on behalf of South Dakota constituents. They served as the eyes and ears for Senator Daschle, maintaining contacts in South Dakota communities, attending meetings on projects and sitting down with individual constituents to discuss matters of importance. Some of Senator Daschle's staff provided over two decades of dedicated service to the people of South Dakota. Their long hours of service, many of them spent driving on country roads, sitting in coffee shops or walking through drought-stricken corn and wheat fields, underscored Senator Daschle's commitment to serve the people of South Dakota. Senator Daschle's South Dakota staff truly reflect the tireless work ethic, dedication, and professionalism that he has exemplified to all the citizens of our state. Whether attending economic development outreach meetings, sacrificing holidays and weekends to travel with Senator Daschle across South Dakota, or tending to the many casework issues facing our constituents, Senator Daschle's South Dakota staff has done a superb job. It is my hope that these valued members of Senator Daschle's South Dakota staff recognize the importance of their work and the great appreciation that many in South Dakota hold for them for their great service. Senator Daschle's current South Dakota staff includes: Beth Smith, Betty Daschle, Jody Jordan, Maeve King, and Virginia Newquist in the Aberdeen office; Ace Crawford, Armon Gaddy, Dorothy Christensen, Jackie Heier, Georgeann Johnson, Rose Larson, and Sheila Lane in the Rapid City office; Bill Idema, Gene Dwyer, Jeff Wilka, Jenn Dolan, Mark Gerhardt, Mary Peters, Michele Seaton, Nicole Deak, Stephanie Devitt, Stephanie Koster Hoyme, Steve Dick, and Steve Erpenbach, Senator Daschle's State director, in the Sioux Falls office. The work of Senator Daschle and his staff will be remembered by South Dakotans for many years to come. I want to thank them for their work and service and wish them all the very best.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges for the remainder of the week be granted to Jimmy Loyless, who is a banking fellow in my office.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of importance not only to South Dakota producers and ranchers, but to producers and ranchers all across America. The issue involves a program that would not only provide positive benefits for our agricultural producers, but ensure consumer choice in the grocery store aisle and on the dinner table. There are efforts underway, unfortunately, to gut the mandatory country-of-origin labeling law that was incorporated into the 2002 farm bill, a farm bill signed into law by this President, and which should be supported by this administration. I rise today to express concern that the fiscal year 2005 omnibus appropriations measure may contain provisions which would weaken or replace mandatory country-of-origin labeling with a voluntary country-of-origin labeling program. As you will recall, last year the Senate overwhelmingly supported a resolution that Senator Daschle introduced instructing conferees to strike any language which would delay the implementation of a mandatory labeling program. The omnibus conference recessed hastily, and consequently no opportunity existed to debate and vote on that matter. In any event, the fiscal year 2004 agriculture appropriations bill, the vehicle for the fiscal year 2004 omnibus, contained language delaying country-of-origin labeling by 2 years for all covered commodities with the exception of farm fish and wild fish. This language was adopted by only a small margin in the House. I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to convey their support for this measure and the importance of mandatory country-of-origin labeling. It is no secret that this administration has voiced its support for resumption of trade of live Canadian cattle, and it is only a matter of time before our producers feel the economic impact of this decision. When USDA opens the floodgates, and if our mandatory labeling program is gutted, consumers will have no way of determining where their meat comes from. And I worry that the Canadian border will reopen before we have resumed trade relations with some of our key export markets. That presents a dangerous situation for our producers, and I fail to see why the administration would continue to cheer large agribusiness while the burden of our faltering export markets is borne by the individuals feeding this great Nation. Country-of-origin labeling retains support from over 80 percent of American consumers, and recently about 95 consumer and producer groups, representing over 50 million Americans, wrote Congress to express their support for a mandatory food labeling program. They also conveyed their opposition to any effort to turn this program into a voluntary program in the 2005 omnibus appropriations measure. Country-of-origin labeling has overwhelming bipartisan support, and the majority of our trading partners have already implemented a country-of-origin system in their respective countries. It is time to quit dragging America's feet and join the remainder of the industrialized nations throughout the world that afford their consumers the right to know the origin of the food they feed their families. I have worked on mandatory country-of-origin labeling for nearly 12 years. My first labeling bill was introduced in 1992, and as the primary author of the origin labeling language incorporated in our existing farm bill, I join Mr. Burns and other Senate colleagues in introducing a bill on that issue today. I will persist in working to speed up implementation of this program with my colleagues. It is important that this Senate continue its bipartisan support for implementation of this commonsense law. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for the 5 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to share my support and thoughts on the 20th anniversary of October's designation as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I am pleased to see the dedication and awareness that has grown over the past 2 decades regarding this specific type of cancer. Twenty years ago, very few people openly discussed breast cancer. General public awareness regarding the high occurrence or symptoms was next to none. As a result many lives were lost do to the lack of knowledge and education regarding detection, treatment, and prevention. However, over the past 2 decades awareness has reached astronomical levels. Today, breast cancer awareness is displayed by various organizations and facets of all kinds both in and out of the health care community. Most of all breast care awareness is highlighted by the growing number of survivors who are alive to share their stories of difficulty and hope. That alone is a feat in itself which shows that public awareness has grown and continues to do so. My wife Barbara is one of these survivors, who battled this condition, not once, but twice. If it was not for the continuous efforts over the past 2 decades, my wife may not have had the knowledge or encouragement to detect early symptoms and seek diagnosis and treatment. My family and I are thankful everyday that Barbra made it through these difficult ordeals. Together we learned how important it is for women of all ages to be proactive in learning about prevention, detecting symptoms, and seeking early treatment. I applaud the various efforts that are being carried out nationwide by varying entities such as business, corporations, media, publications, schools, spokespersons, and women and men of all ages. This widespread dedication is a tremendous force that has proven to be influential in our Nation's efforts to combat this disease. I believe it is important for all of us to take an active part in helping to educate the public and find a cure. Currently, there are legislative initiatives geared towards increasing research and funding for all types of cancer, including breast cancer. It is my hope that as this Congress draws to a close that we work together in a broad bipartisan manner to see that we secure necessary funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. The President has requested inadequate funding levels in the fiscal year 2005 budget for these programs, which oversee a great deal of cancer research done in this country. As a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations I was pleased to support and help pass increased funding for the NIH and CDC in the fiscal year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriation bill. But it is still critical that my colleagues work in a bipartisan manner and support these increases as we complete the final stages of the appropriations process. Once again, I commend the work and dedication of all the individuals who continue to bring awareness to this important cause in the month of October, as well as year round. These efforts have saved numerous lives and will someday hopefully eradicate this type of cancer.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, disaster assistance has nearly always been designated as emergency spending, just like the President's supplemental request now, which he wants to designate as emergency spending. The Senate spoke clearly by approving our agricultural disaster aid amendment that treats agricultural disaster just like any other disaster, as emergency spending and not off-set by other programs. The President's supplemental request calls for agricultural emergency disaster aid for farmers and ranchers, but only for those whose crops or livestock have been damaged by a hurricane or tropical storm. And as I said, he did not require that the assistance be offset. If we are going to treat all farmers and ranchers the same, the disaster aid for them should make no difference if it is because of a drought in Texas, Colorado or South Dakota, or a flood in Ohio or Pennsylvania or West Virginia. There is a huge disparity in matching up the disaster assistance spending, which will occur in fiscal year 2005, against the offset, which is spread across fiscal years 2006 through 2014. Because of this mismatch there would be a budget point of order against this conference report if it includes the offset from the farm bill as an offset for the farm bill. This is another reason why the disaster assistance should be designated emergency spending as it has been for many, many years--with only one exception, which was reversed not long afterward. This budget problem is so significant that I would think, or at least hope, that the conferees and the leadership would be embarrassed to bring such an obvious budget gimmick to the floor. Let me explain further. The agricultural disaster package dollars will practically all be expended in fiscal 2005. However, the offset that the House adopted does not kick in until fiscal 2006 according to CBO scoring. The offset would save $56 million in fiscal 2006, then the per-year savings would increase over the years, but the full offset would not be achieved until the end of fiscal 2014. Of course, I am not arguing for taking more out of the farm bill earlier. I am just saying that this entire idea of offsetting a disaster program that pays out in one year out of mandatory spending over the next 10 years is a charade. It will cannibalize money from the farm bill and dramatically damage the conservation title of the farm bill. It will reduce the farm bill baseline and damage our ability to write the next farm bill in a few years. And it is a precedent that ties the hands of the appropriations committee to respond to future disasters. The point of the whole exercise? To come up with a budget gimmick that is not really even an offset and which raises a budget point of order. Again, the larger point here is that it makes no sense to require offsets for emergency disaster assistance legislation. A disaster is a disaster no matter where it is--and an emergency is an emergency, no matter where it is. We should simply recognize the wisdom and the necessity of funding agricultural disaster measures through the emergency spending designation--which is the overwhelming precedent over many years. Again, with only one exception we can find ever--in the past many decades in which we have responded to disaster losses. American farmers and ranchers help keep food affordable in this country and also help to feed the world. They produce the food and fiber that is so vital to our economy while protecting our soil, helping to keep our waters clean, and reducing air pollution across the country. And, they are the basis for the strongest part of our Nation's economic engine--in fact, food and fiber comprise roughly 16 percent of our gross domestic product. Farmers and ranchers did not ask for floods or frost or drought. Congress needs to respond to these natural disasters by providing assistance to those affected including the nation's farmers and ranchers to help restore financial stability in times of such losses, and since we have traditionally provided such assistance on an emergency basis without cutting programs to the class of those suffering--we should continue to do so as the Senate has already supported. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned today at the manner in which the Congress, and more specifically conferees to the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, have chosen to address disaster funding. Our agriculture producers in South Dakota and across America have waited a long time for substantive relief--relief that will enable our family farmers and agricultural communities to survive through hard times--and the majority leadership has chosen to provide emergency relief for hurricane victims while requiring farmers and ranchers on the Northern Plains to cannibalize an already underfunded conservation program in order to secure moderate drought assistance. With respect to the Conservation Security Program, the CSP budget was funded at only 41 million dollars for Fiscal Year 2004. The severe funding limitations on the program allowed the Natural Resources Conservation Service to write only around 2,000 contracts, and limited watersheds were chosen, not one of which was in my home State of South Dakota. South Dakota has already been shortchanged because of decreased conservation dollars, and I would urge my colleagues to ensure CSP can operate as intended under the farm bill. The disaster package that was attached to the Homeland Security funding bill had bipartisan support and was approved in the Senate by a voice vote. Given the enormous savings we have experienced with farm bill price support programs, totaling nearly $16 billion, we shouldn't be robbing Peter to pay Paul to provide any type of substantive relief. Farmers shouldn't have to pay any more, and they shouldn't have to choose between crucial environmental programs and substantive disaster relief.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, may I direct a question to my colleague?

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to report to the body that I have just come from the Military Construction Subcommittee conference markup. Oddly enough, military construction--the way things work around here--is now the vehicle for bringing up disaster relief to Florida and on the Northern Plains. We were able to obtain nearly a $3 billion drought relief package on that bill, thanks to Senator Daschle in large part, and Senator Harkin, of course, with his leadership. But I don't believe it would be on the floor at all were it not for Senator Daschle's leadership. That drought relief passed with a unanimous bipartisan vote in the Senate earlier this year. Yet when it came back to the Military Construction Subcommittee as part of this disaster aid we are adding, it had this very convoluted offset that is stretched out for over 10 years. I have to ask the leader, Senator Daschle, who has been through this and has championed agriculture for so many years as an extraordinary representative and as a leader on rural and agricultural issues, if there is any logic the leader can discern why disaster relief for hurricane victims is emergency funding, and disaster relief as it turns out now for farmers and ranchers suffering from drought is cannibalized out of the agriculture budget for the rest of the decade. What logic is there to that? What fairness is there to that kind of approach to this disaster relief bill that is now likely to pass? We are grateful for disaster relief, but this uneven treatment between farmers and hurricane victims strikes me as sadly peculiar and an unfortunate precedent that rural people will suffer from for years to come. I would be interested in any response, given the great experience and leadership Senator Daschle has afforded rural America for all of these years, whether he sees any logic to this kind of separate treatment of farmers versus others in America today.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President I rise today to mark the beginning of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, NDVAM and to acknowledge the tenth anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. NDVAM began in 1987 as a way to draw attention to the problem domestic violence. Seventeen years later, domestic violence is still a blight in our communities. As such, we must do what we can to combat domestic violence. A timely reauthorization of VAWA is a critical step in this effort. Ratified in 1994 as title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, VAWA established protocol and discretionary grant programs that are managed by the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services. As indicated by Congressional Research Service reports, grants administered by DOJ aid law enforcement, establish and operate training programs for victim advocates and counselors, and train probation and parole officers who work with released sex offenders. Grants provided by the HHS fund shelters for battered women, rape prevention programs, and community programs on domestic violence. Grants also provide funding for efforts to reduce sexual abuse of runaway and homeless street youth. VAWA also finances and annually publishes a series of reports on the methods of assessing and preventing gender-related crimes. The findings of these studies are used to develop existing programs and create new ones in areas that require more attention. As a result, VAWA's efforts have initiated critical changes in Federal laws regarding interstate stalking, intrastate domestic abuse, the rules of evidence concerning the use of a victim's past sexual behavior, and HIV testing in rape cases. Additionally, VAWA instituted a pilot program for safe custody exchange for families of domestic violence, as well as a domestic violence task force. These initiatives greatly enhance the enforcement of protective orders across state lines. Without VAWA's assistance, battered women who relocate to other states would be extremely vulnerable, as would these States' resources. Despite the enormous strides the VAWA has made for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, Native American women still experience the highest rate of violence of any group in the United States. This is of particular concern to the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota tribes located in my home State of South Dakota. A Department of Justice report titled, ``American Indians and Crime,'' found that Native American women suffer from violent crime at a rate three and a half times greater than the national average. Researchers also estimate that this number is actually much higher, as according to the Department of Justice, over 70 percent of sexual assaults are never reported. Many Native American women remain silent due to cultural barriers, a high level of mistrust for white dominated agencies, and a history of inactivity by state and tribal agencies to prosecute crimes committed against Native Americans. Furthermore, it is important to address the fact that police and courts tend to ignore cases of violence involving Native American women, due to alleged confusion between Federal and tribal jurisdictions. Cases involving a non-Native American perpetrator and a Native American victim fall under Federal jurisdiction. Tribes do not have criminal jurisdiction over nontribal members even for crimes committed against Native women on the reservation, and regrettably, States are not effective enough in enforcing tribal protection orders. Fortunately, VAWA provides victims with access to critical resources by establishing key grant programs that improve the criminal and civil justice systems' response to victims, as mentioned above. However, even with the best efforts of antiviolence advocates, law enforcement officials and judicial personnel have yet to reach everyone in need of assistance. Despite the successes of VAWA, Native American women are still at greater risk of becoming victims of violence, and the jurisdictional issues they face only further complicate the problem. On the tenth anniversary of the VAWA, I call on my colleagues to continue supporting this important piece of legislation. Its contributions to society, while unfinished, are essential to combating abuse against women.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge American pharmacists during American Pharmacists Month. Pharmacists play an important role in our health care system. Their contributions to the care of our country's citizens, especially our seniors, are key to the health of Americans. Pharmacists are medication experts within our Nation's health care workforce. Each day, their efforts assist in improving the use and effectiveness of medications. Pharmacists are improving health care in community pharmacies, hospitals and health systems, nursing homes, hospice, and in patient's own homes through home-infusion therapies, as well as the uniformed services, the government, and in research and academic settings. Pharmacists work towards making sure that consumers safely administer their medications, and to provide them with crucial information pertaining to possible side effects or complications of taking multiple medications. Pharmacists assist in providing the most effective combinations of prescription drugs to those who take more than one prescription at a time. Pharmacists are a critical part of our health care system and should be recognized and commended this month for their important role. During the course of the debate on the Medicare prescription drug bill, I introduced a medication therapy management, MTM assessment amendment, which I was pleased to see accepted in the Senate passed version of the Medicare bill. While the amendment was not included in the version sent to the President for his signature, I was pleased to see an MTM program component incorporated. Establishment of such a program would allow pharmacists, in conjunction with physicians, to assist beneficiaries who have various chronic conditions manage their medications. Pharmacists will be able to help ensure that patients use medications appropriately, enhance the patient understanding of such medications and help reduce the risk of adverse reactions to drugs. Such a program highlights the important role that pharmacists play in helping Medicare beneficiaries to reduce the costs of prescription drugs. As prescription drug prices continue to climb, it is all too important that we continue to support efforts that will help to alleviate this burden. As noted, pharmacists are a critical component of our health care workforce and therefore need to be provided with the tools that help them to best serve the public, as well as to continue to combat the rising prices of prescription drugs. During American Pharmacists Month, I call on my fellow Senate colleagues to join in a bipartisan effort to support our pharmacists by acknowledging and commending their hard work and dedication towards improving the effectiveness and overall cost of health care.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in introducing a very important piece of legislation that will improve access to information about prescription drugs for patients and their doctors. Today Senators Dodd, Kennedy and Wyden and I are introducing the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act, or FACT Act. I want to commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation. I also want to thank them for their commitment to ensuring that finally, objective, unbiased information can be put in the hands of consumers and doctors, reducing negative outcomes, improving patient care and ultimately reducing costs of medications. It is unacceptable that today, much of the information consumers and doctors rely on to make decisions about the medications they use are based on incomplete information. Patients are often swayed by direct- to-consumer drug advertisements. Doctors must rely on the information they learn at drug company sponsored conferences, and in peer reviewed journals that publish largely the success stories. But what about the untold stories? What about the clinical trials that were discontinued by drug companies because the data appeared to not be going in the right direction? What about the studies that are part of an application for a new drug that may show a negative result? And what about trials that have been conducted to study the appropriateness of an off-label use? Today, physicians and their patients do not have access to any of this important information, and that must change now. The lack of access to this information can have real, devastating effects on patients. We have all heard the stories in the papers in recent months. We have heard about New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's lawsuit, which charged GlaxoSmithKline with suppressing the publication of studies suggesting that its antidepressant drug Paxil could increase the risk of suicide among adolescents. Further investigation of this issue has found that some manufacturers of antidepressants highlighted positive findings in tests on youngsters while playing down negative or inconclusive ones. We have just recently learned that the arthritis medication Vioxx was pulled off the market, due to negative study findings, and just yesterday learned that over 27,000 sudden cardiac deaths and heart attacks may have been caused. While Merck did the right thing by pulling the drug after learning of clinical trial, they were under no obligation to share this information with consumers or the medical profession. Drug companies have lobbied to ensure that only the Food and Drug Administration gets this information and, even then, some drug companies simply discontinue studies that they do not think will reflect favorably on their product. What doctors advocating the development of a comprehensive clinical trial registry have indicated is that without ready access to all experimental data, good, bad and indifferent, they cannot hope to know what is the best treatment for their patients. Our legislation will get at that very issue, by requiring that clinical trials are registered in a database that is accessible to the public. This bill will create a comprehensive clinical trial database, which will require that all trials for drugs, biologics, and medical devices be registered in the database in order to obtain approval from a U.S. Institutional Review Board to move forward with any study. Researchers will be required to disclose basic information about a study initially, so that consumers can be aware of studies while they are underway. Once trials are completed, the bill requires that the results of those studies be made available to doctors and patients. There is significant time allowed in the bill for researchers to publish their results, prior to them being made public in the database. Submission to this database will be mandatory for all federally funded and non- federally funded trials, and strong enforcement mechanisms are incorporated into the bill. Making the results of clinical drug trials public is not only a good consumer right-to-know or rather need-to-know issue, but it is also the ethically responsible thing to do. Patients enter trials for the good of science. It is our obligation to ensure that their sacrifices provide for the greater good of the public health. Publicizing the results of those studies is a step in that direction. Patients enrolling in clinical trials often know up front that the likely chance of directly benefiting from a treatment is unknown. But patients are also told that even if they do not experience a positive outcome, doctors can learn from the results, which will advance science in the long term. This legislation is strongly supported by the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Consumers Union and the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation which is long overdue.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in introducing a very important piece of legislation that will improve access to information about prescription drugs for patients and their doctors. Today Senators Dodd, Kennedy and Wyden and I are introducing the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act, or FACT Act. I want to commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation. I also want to thank them for their commitment to ensuring that finally, objective, unbiased information can be put in the hands of consumers and doctors, reducing negative outcomes, improving patient care and ultimately reducing costs of medications. It is unacceptable that today, much of the information consumers and doctors rely on to make decisions about the medications they use are based on incomplete information. Patients are often swayed by direct- to-consumer drug advertisements. Doctors must rely on the information they learn at drug company sponsored conferences, and in peer reviewed journals that publish largely the success stories. But what about the untold stories? What about the clinical trials that were discontinued by drug companies because the data appeared to not be going in the right direction? What about the studies that are part of an application for a new drug that may show a negative result? And what about trials that have been conducted to study the appropriateness of an off-label use? Today, physicians and their patients do not have access to any of this important information, and that must change now. The lack of access to this information can have real, devastating effects on patients. We have all heard the stories in the papers in recent months. We have heard about New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's lawsuit, which charged GlaxoSmithKline with suppressing the publication of studies suggesting that its antidepressant drug Paxil could increase the risk of suicide among adolescents. Further investigation of this issue has found that some manufacturers of antidepressants highlighted positive findings in tests on youngsters while playing down negative or inconclusive ones. We have just recently learned that the arthritis medication Vioxx was pulled off the market, due to negative study findings, and just yesterday learned that over 27,000 sudden cardiac deaths and heart attacks may have been caused. While Merck did the right thing by pulling the drug after learning of clinical trial, they were under no obligation to share this information with consumers or the medical profession. Drug companies have lobbied to ensure that only the Food and Drug Administration gets this information and, even then, some drug companies simply discontinue studies that they do not think will reflect favorably on their product. What doctors advocating the development of a comprehensive clinical trial registry have indicated is that without ready access to all experimental data, good, bad and indifferent, they cannot hope to know what is the best treatment for their patients. Our legislation will get at that very issue, by requiring that clinical trials are registered in a database that is accessible to the public. This bill will create a comprehensive clinical trial database, which will require that all trials for drugs, biologics, and medical devices be registered in the database in order to obtain approval from a U.S. Institutional Review Board to move forward with any study. Researchers will be required to disclose basic information about a study initially, so that consumers can be aware of studies while they are underway. Once trials are completed, the bill requires that the results of those studies be made available to doctors and patients. There is significant time allowed in the bill for researchers to publish their results, prior to them being made public in the database. Submission to this database will be mandatory for all federally funded and non- federally funded trials, and strong enforcement mechanisms are incorporated into the bill. Making the results of clinical drug trials public is not only a good consumer right-to-know or rather need-to-know issue, but it is also the ethically responsible thing to do. Patients enter trials for the good of science. It is our obligation to ensure that their sacrifices provide for the greater good of the public health. Publicizing the results of those studies is a step in that direction. Patients enrolling in clinical trials often know up front that the likely chance of directly benefiting from a treatment is unknown. But patients are also told that even if they do not experience a positive outcome, doctors can learn from the results, which will advance science in the long term. This legislation is strongly supported by the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Consumers Union and the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation which is long overdue.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to note the importance of the week of October 3-9, 2004, which is National Mental Health Week. This annual event was created in the hopes that Americans would recognize and honor the challenge encountered by the mentally ill and their loved ones. This year, the theme of the National Mental Health Week is ``unity through disparities''. Mental illnesses affect 22.1 percent of Americans over the age of 18. According to a National Institute of Mental Health 2001 survey, approximately 44.3 million Americans suffer from some form of mental illness. Conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive compulsive disorder, together are ranked fourth of the ten leading causes of disabilities in the United States. Such statistics clearly indicate that we cannot afford to ignore the needs of those living with a mental illness. The impact of mental illnesses on the productivity of the United States is greatly underestimated. The Global Burden of Disease study, published by the National Institute of Mental Health, exposed that mental illness, including suicide, accounts for 15 percent of the burden of disease in established market economies. This study reveals that mental illness places a larger burden on the productivity of the United States than all cancers combined. Such findings reemphasize that more attention and resources need to be directed towards supporting the mentally ill. Today millions of Americans living with some form of mental illness continue to be discriminated against on a daily basis by their insurance companies. Congress passed mental health parity legislation that went into effect January 1, 1998 to try and address this problem. This legislation was intended to require insurance companies that choose to provide coverage for mental health to offer the same lifetime cap as they do for physical illness. This legislation was meant to be a monumental first step in preventing discrimination against individuals with mental illness. Since enactment of this legislation, insurance companies have not expanded their coverage, but instead have maintained just enough coverage to remain within the legal limits of the law. Today I call on my fellow Senators to support the Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003, S. 486. Under this bill, full coverage equality with respect to health insurance coverage will be provided to those who are mentally ill. It is my hope that in the closing weeks before the close of the 108th Congress, that we can come together in a bipartisan manner and support S. 486, not only for those who suffer from mental illness and their families, but also to pay tribute to our colleague, the late Senator Paul Wellstone, who continuously fought for such parity during his service in the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Tom Daschle and myself, we publicly honor and recognize Chuck Groth. For more than 30 years, Chuck Groth has been telling the story. Whether it's about the trials and tribulations of farm families or the status of Federal policy that will impact agriculture, more than 10,000 South Dakota farm families have relied on Chuck's insightful presentation in their monthly edition of the Union Farmer. The Union Farmer is the voice of the South Dakota Farmer's Union, covering the extensive interests of the organization's varied membership. Chuck Groth has been responsible for more than 360 editions of the Union Farmer--an extraordinary record of longevity. Throughout the ups and downs of the industry, Chuck reported the news that captured the current state of affairs. He helped elevate the public dialogue about important issues, and made people more aware of the plight of South Dakota's farm and ranch families. During the mid-1980s, America's farm families faced their darkest days since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Chuck helped organized thousands of Farmer's Union members to call upon their elected officials to provide assistance to rural America. The effort led to a historic act that took all 105 members of the South Dakota State Legislature to Washington, DC, in 1985 to lobby Congress about the needs of rural America. Chuck has helped organize more than 50 fly-ins to Washington, DC, trips that helped keep farm policy at the forefront of the congressional agenda. Agriculture needed to have its story told, and Chuck was the wordsmith that made that possible. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Tom Daschle and myself in saluting Chuck Groth for his distinguished career and commitment to our Nation's family farmer.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly recognize the progress of the Veterans' History Project and to honor Greg Latza, author of Blue Stars: A Selection of Stories from South Dakota's World War II Veterans. Blue Stars honors and immortalizes the incredible stories of forty- four South Dakota World War II veterans. Greg's inspiration for writing this book came in 1994, when as a photographer for a newspaper, he covered a powerful interview of a Sioux Falls World War II veteran. As World War II veterans grow older, it is important to collect their stories, as Greg did, before they are lost. There are 19 million war veterans living in the United States, and every day we lose 1,600 of them. We will be able to honor their services for generations to come by collecting their memories for the Veterans' History Project and preserving them at the Library of Congress. The Veterans' History Project, which Congress unanimously approved on October 27, 2000, honors our Nation's war veterans and those who served in support of them, by creating a legacy of recorded interviews and other documents chronicling veterans' wartime experiences. The project encompasses veterans of World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. All recordings of personal histories and all documents submitted to the Veterans' History Project will be archived in the National History Collection at the Library of Congress' American Folklife Center. These important artifacts will create a comprehensive, searchable catalog of veterans' stories, thus allowing current and future generations to access them. I congratulate Greg Latza on his efforts. Blue Stars pays a great tribute to South Dakota's contributions to World War II. Like the Veterans' History Project, it serves as an excellent example of the importance of honoring and remembering America's veterans.