Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I honor and publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the town of Watertown, SD. The town of Watertown has a proud past and a promising future. In 1878, the Winona and St. Peter Railroad settled the area that became known as Watertown. Previously, in 1873, the railroad company had established a settlement called Kampeska. Eventually, due to a lack of railroad construction beyond Kampeska, many of the town's residents moved to Watertown. By the end of 1878, Watertown had become the county seat of Codington County. In that same year, the town's first railroad station and post office were built. By February, the population of the town was 509. In 1880, the U.S. Land Office opened in Watertown and subsequently opened ``surplus'' land on the Sisseton-Wahpeton Reservation to settlement. In that same year, the town's first bank opened. From 1898 to 1915, Watertown grew rapidly and became the wholesale and retail trade center for much of Northeast South Dakota. By the end of World War I, four major railroad companies operated eight routes into and out of town, making the town a transportation center and facilitating its growth. Watertown and Codington County veterans have served in all major wars and conflicts of the 20th century, with 18 dying in WWI, 57 in World War II, 2 in Korea, and 11 in Vietnam. A World War II U.S. Navy destroyer-escort was named USS Gustafson in honor of a young naval officer, Lt. Arthur Gustafson, a resident of Watertown who was killed when the Japanese attacked his ship in early 1942. The loss of a large meatpacking plant and other agricultural-related concerns by the 1960s and 1970s alerted city and county officials to the necessity of diversifying the local economy. Watertown embarked on a program of industrial and economic diversification. What is today Lake Area Technical Institute began in the 1960s and has provided technical education to thousands of students since that time. Watertown became a regional medical center with the consolidation of hospital facilities into the Prairie Lakes Healthcare System in the 1980s. In the 1990s, nationally and internationally known artist Terry Redlin, a Watertown native, came back to his home town to establish the Redlin Art Center, a gallery of more than 140 of his original oil paintings. The Center opened in 1997 and, by 2004, over 1.5 million visitors had been through its doors. A tremendous asset for Watertown, it has attracted visitors from all 50 States and over 30 foreign countries. To celebrate the town's anniversary, Watertown hosted a Mayor's Breakfast, including recognition of the town's 125th anniversary in the 4th of July parade and hosted a ``crazy days'' celebration. Celebrations will continue throughout the year and include a dinner and dance on New Year's Eve. It is with great honor that I advise my colleagues of the achievements made by this great community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in my home State of South Dakota and across America, hardworking producers tirelessly contribute to the production of our Nation's food supply. Our Nation's producers consistently preserve the safety and wholesomeness of the commodities they produce, ensuring America's food security and contributing to our overall well-being. It is because of our producers and ranchers that we enjoy the safest food supply in the world, and we owe them our thanks. It is the well-being of the agricultural community which I am concerned for, and it is the well-being of our rural communities that is threatened with the possible implementation of the Australian-United States Free Trade Agreement. It is evident that while Australia could stand to benefit substantially from a free trade agreement with the United States, limited opportunities exist for the U.S. livestock industry and agricultural sector. For example, in 2003, agricultural and food exports to Australia accounted for only $611 million. This figure accounts for only one percent of U.S. worldwide sales. The overall value of U.S. agricultural imports from Australia equaled an astounding $2.1 billion. These numbers speak loudly for the type of economic opportunity this agreement poses for Australia, at the detriment of our domestic producers. Our South Dakotan beef producers are dedicated to producing a quality, wholesome, and nutritious product. They are successful even in the face of market concentration, packer ownership issues, and an ever- changing agricultural landscape. The FTA with Australia poses yet another burden for our agriculture producers. Phasing out U.S. above- quota duties on beef over an 18-year period and gradually increasing and lifting quota levels by the end of that period will not encourage growth in our own agriculture economy, and instead, provide a valuable market for the Australian agricultural sector. The quota increases will take effect when U.S. beef exports return to their 2003 level, the level before the discovery of ``mad cow'' disease levels, or three years after the effective date of the agreement, whichever is earlier. After the transition period, a price-based safeguard should be available. Such action, even with supposed safeguards after the transition period for market disruptions, will be harmful to U.S. beef producers. I have several concerns about how these safeguards would be utilized, and the actual effect on our producers. Along with my colleagues, I have written to President Bush, as well as United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, to convey my concern about this agreement. While sugar was excluded from the agreement, I, and a number of my Senate colleagues, had requested that beef and cattle be excluded from negotiations of the Australia FTA as well. This request was not heeded. Additionally, a letter was sent concerning Australian imports of dairy, yet another sensitive agriculture commodity that was included in the FTA, and the potentially significant impacts on our pricing system it will have and the inconsistencies it presents with respect to our Federal efforts to financially assist producers. Our beef industry is a crucial component of the agricultural sector in South Dakota, and we should not enter into trade agreements with Australia, or any other country, that would further damage our agriculture industry. Given our weak economy, we cannot afford to lose more jobs, and we must guard against economic hardships in our rural communities. Another disturbing component to the FTA with Australia is the prescription drug language. United States citizens continue to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. A study by Families USA found that for the 50 drugs most frequently used by seniors that year, prices rose 3.4 times the rate of inflation in 2002. Such statistics are staggering, and meaningful solutions are needed now. That is why I am a cosponsor of S. 2328, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Fair Trade Act, legislation that will provide American consumers access to affordable, life-saving medications through prescription drug reimportation. This legislation would provide South Dakotans with access to reimported drugs through personal importation of up to a 90-day supply of a drug from Canada, and eventually, once the Food and Drug Administration puts safety protocols in place, individuals would be able to purchase drugs directly from Canadian and U.S. wholesalers and pharmacies would be able to import drugs from facilities in several countries that are registered, fully inspected and approved by FDA. Unfortunately, the trade agreement before us today threatens to dismantle the efforts we are now taking to provide more affordable drugs in our country. The agreement includes provisions which require that the two governments ensure that brand-name drug companies have the right to prevent the importation of their products. While supporters of the trade agreement claim that we should not be concerned about this provision because Australian law already bans the export of subsidized prescription drugs, this sets a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements, which we cannot ignore. This seems to be yet another attempt by the Bush administration to prevent reimportation. Two-thirds of Americans support reimportation as an effective strategy to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. The President is clearly sending a signal that he cares more about the pharmaceutical industry's profits, than access to life-saving medicines for U.S. citizens.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join the bipartisan majority in this Senate in opposition to the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 40, the Federal marriage amendment, to the United States Constitution. I strongly support, and have voted for, Federal legislation that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman; however, there is no need at this time to take the extraordinary step of amending our Constitution. Since l996, Federal law has allowed the respective States to refuse to recognize another State's gay marriage laws, and it also expresses the congressional view that the institution of marriage should be limited to a union between a man and a woman. I have recently been contacted by a great many religious organizations, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, ELCA, my own denomination, as well as the Alliance of Baptists, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the United Church of Christ, among others, asking me to oppose this proposed constitutional amendment. While I do not ``take orders'' from any religious group, including my own, this does confirm that my opposition to this amendment is consistent with the views of millions of devout Christians throughout South Dakota and America. Further, because Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was unable to secure any consensus behind the specific language of any one marriage amendment, he will not allow the Senate to take a direct up-or-down vote on a marriage amendment. I commend Senator Tom Daschle for asking for a direct vote on this matter. However, Senator Frist objected, and now we find ourselves in an incredible situation where Senator Frist wants the Senate to vote on a wide range of possible amendments which could profoundly impact the Constitution. If this motion to proceed prevails, we would have endless amendments offered to the Constitution on any topic under the sun. That is utterly irresponsible, and I will have nothing to do with helping to pass Senator Frist's motion to proceed. Lastly, I take issue with the timing of this debate. After this vote we will have a mere 26 legislative days left in the 108th Congress. Currently, 9 of the 13 appropriations bills have not even received committee approval. Only two of those bills have passed the full Appropriations Committee and only one has passed the full Senate. Time is short. Knowing that this amendment will not even be voted on, and that the motion to proceed will be defeated by bipartisan opposition, there are significantly more important matters this body should be attending to. I am enclosing a relevant editorial on this issue from the highly respected New York Times. There are real problems facing our Nation--job losses, health care, education, senior citizen challenges and agricultural issues among them. Yet the Senate has spent days debating an amendment that even Senator Frist concedes will not come even close to passage. This is a politically inspired amendment--one that has not even been considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The American people deserve better than this mockery of a legislative process. I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced editorial in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to honor and publicly recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the town of Lennox, SD. The town of Lennox has a proud past and a promising future. In 1879, the Milwaukee Railroad established a branch where the town stands today. The town of Lennox was named after B.G. Lennox, private secretary to S.S. Merrill, a railroad executive. By 1880, 90 people lived in Lennox, and the town has experienced steady growth since then. The 2000 census listed Lennox as having a population of just over 2,000 people. Lennox is governed by a seven-person city council. There are numerous projects and major developments underway in Lennox. Currently, the city is upgrading its water system, with two new water towers and a new well to ensure that the city has plenty of water. The Lennox Commercial Club has many of the town's businesses as members and meets monthly to sponsor promotions and encourage business growth. An active senior center, the Good Samaritan Center, the Hilda's Heritage Home all provide support for seniors. Small towns like Lennox are the backbone of rural States such as South Dakota. A growing community built by good neighbors and a strong foundation is a great place to raise a family. The town has been celebrating throughout the year and is continuing through July with events at the high school, community church and a sauerkraut/polka party on the town's main street. This sort of wholesome, small town celebration is a great example of rural South Dakota's commitment to good values and local history. It is with great honor that I share this great community with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the work of a wonderfully talented individual, whose leadership has helped the University of South Dakota Medical School grow, and advance an excellent reputation within the national health care community during his 17-year tenure as dean. At the age of 68, Dr. Robert Talley retires from his role as dean to become the University of South Dakota's interim director for internal medicine residency in Sioux Falls, where he will continue to teach and guide our South Dakota medical community. Dr. Talley graduated from the University of Michigan in 1958 and from the University of Chicago Medical School in 1962. He went on to Yale New Haven Hospital where he pursued an internship and residency. He then completed cardiology and clinical pharmacology fellowships at Grady Memorial Hospital in 1969. Dr. Talley's career took him to various positions in San Antonio, with the University of Texas Medical School and Veterans Administration Hospital from 1969 through 1975. He became the chairman of the USD Department of Internal Medicine in 1975, and was promoted to dean in 1987. Dr. Talley was a founding member of the Medical Service Plan, the predecessor of University Physicians. While Dr. Talley served as dean, the medical school received full accreditation during each review. Dr. Talley developed a model of medical student clinical education, which is considered cutting edge in the United States, and helped to form unique partnerships with the South Dakota Health Science Research Foundation and the Wegner Health Science Information Center. In the past 5 years, funded research in the basic biomedical sciences division alone grew 189 percent, resulting in great part from Dr. Talley's reorganization of the basic biomedical sciences division at the university. Dr. Talley provided outstanding leadership in medical education and is responsible for significant innovation in USD's approach to the education of South Dakota's health care providers. At the national level, Talley is a member of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits 125 undergraduate medical education programs in the United States. He served as chair of the American Medical Association Section on Medical Schools and chair of the Internal Medicine Committee, National Board of Medical Examiners. Most recently, the American College of Physicians--American Society of Internal Medicine bestowed a Mastership rank on Dr. Talley in recognition of his distinguished contributions to internal medicine. Dr. Talley could have devoted his talents to private practice. But instead he chose to be an educator--he chose to use his skills in a manner that would enable him to reach a wide circle of individuals and which has had profoundly important public policy consequences. He knows his students by name and utilizes the wide range of his students' abilities to enhance classroom discussion. His approach to teaching enriches health education on multiple levels that will prepare students for real-life situations in working with patients. Dr. Talley's impact on the University of South Dakota, its students and faculty, and on the entire State will be felt for generations to come.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly congratulate Dr. Donald Dahlin who is retiring from his position as Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of South Dakota. He will be returning to the Department of Political Science where he will be teaching American Government and Constitutional Law on a part- time basis. As the Vice President for Academic Affairs over the past 7 years, Don has further enhanced the ideals and principles upon which the University of South Dakota stands. Much has been accomplished during his tenure. Of particular note is the progress made on a strategic plan and implementation of the First Year Experience and IdEA programs. University of South Dakota President James W. Abbott said that the University of South Dakota has benefited greatly from Dr. Dahlin's service. As a new president without academic experience, I was extremely fortunate to have been the beneficiary of Don Dahlin's wisdom and expertise. Don has provided leadership in many different roles. He served as the acting President at USD, Chair of the Department of Political Science, and Director of the Criminal Justice Studies Program. He also served the State as Secretary of the Department of Public Safety as well as the Nation as an active consultant in the field of law enforcement, public safety, the judiciary and court management. Don's leadership and character is exactly what the USD community and education field in South Dakota needs to evolve and survive in the future. I wish nothing but the best for him and his family. It is with great honor that I share his impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to an important program that could be facing fiscal shortfalls if we do not make necessary corrections. I am referring to my support for the Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. This program is a proven success and I support a $150 million earmark for the DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program for fiscal year 2005. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2004 there will be 668,470 women diagnosed with cancer. Of this overall estimate of cases, 32 percent will be breast cancer. The 2004 estimated deaths from breast cancer will be 15 percent. These statistics only reemphasize the importance of cancer research, and our continued need to fund efforts that will ultimately eliminate the number of deaths from breast cancer. Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program is a one-of-a-kind research program that uses an innovative grants structure which brings scientists and consumers together to make key policy decisions about breast cancer research. Since its inception 12 years ago, this far-reaching, influential program has literally changed the way breast cancer research is done. The program has funded groundbreaking research, including the discovery of the drug Herceptin, which prolongs the lives of women with a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer. This drug could not have been developed without research that was funded in part by the DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. New approaches and innovations in research, such as these, are the keys to finding a cure. Not only is this program on the cutting edge of breast cancer research, but also is extremely streamlined. Every penny spent by this program and the researchers who receive funding are accounted for at a public meeting every 2 years. Ninety percent of the funds go directly to research and only 10 percent are used for administrative costs. I applaud this type of fiscal efficiency and hope that more research programs will be able to learn from the structure of this program. An overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the Senate supports this program every year. This year, 66 Senators, including myself, signed a letter addressed to the Senate Appropriations Committee urging the continuation of the DOD Breast Cancer Peer Review Research Program earmark with level funding of $150 million for FY '05. Unfortunately, the language in the Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 threatens the funding and unique structure of the Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed Research Program. The Senate bill combines all of the congressionally directed cancer research programs into one account and reduces the total funding available to all. As written, the Senate bill seriously threatens the integrity of the DOD breast cancer research program and will dismantle its one-of-a-kind peer review process involving patients and consumers that makes the program so successful and unique. The proposal will force cancer groups to compete with one another for reduced funding. And, a particularly dangerous component of the proposal is that it transfers funding to other cancer projects that are not recommended by a scientific peer reviewed process. Mr. President, we cannot afford to cut any cancer research programs, especially when the President's budget is planning to only increase the National Institutes of Health by $728 million, and increase the National Cancer Institute budget by only $100 million, which both fall short of previous years' requests. In addition the President's budget cuts funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by $408 million. This proves troublesome for CDC programs, such as the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program which assists in funding State programs that help uninsured women undergo screenings for breast and cervical cancer. These inadequate funding requests fall drastically short of what the Institutes and CDC need in order to carry out their cancer research and assistance. This only reiterates why we must preserve critical programs such as the Department of Defense Peer- Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. I therefore call upon conferees to support the language passed in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2005 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Resolution 37, a resolution to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all native peoples on behalf of the United States. A formal apology is the first appropriate step in reconciling relationships with Indian tribes and native peoples. However, an apology by itself is not enough to heal the wounds inflicted by some of the devastating policies adopted by our government. To really make amends with Indian tribes and native peoples, our government needs to return to the original understanding of the Federal-tribal relationship. The foundation of the Federal-tribal relationship is rooted in our great Constitution and the Indian treaties ratified pursuant to it. When a person reads the Founder's words pertaining to the sovereignty of Indian tribes, in conjunction with the early laws and treaties ratified by our government, he or she quickly realizes that the underpinnings of the Federal-tribal relationship is based upon mutual respect, trust responsibility, and the idea that our government must obtain consent from Indian tribes and native peoples before any Federal action can be taken. Almost every Indian treaty recognizes that Indian tribes have control over their lands and that our government could not assert authority or take lands away from tribes unless there is an articulation of tribal consent. The first treaty our government signed with an Indian Nation was the 1778 Treaty of Fort Pitt. During the American Revolutionary War, our government signed this treaty to obtain permission from the Delaware Nation to allow General Washington's army to cross through their territory. If the Delaware Nation would not have permitted this crossing, the history of our United States might have turned out drastically differently. As history teaches, when our government swayed away from the foundation of the Federal-tribal relationship, Indian tribes and native peoples suffered. For example, in 1830, Congress narrowly passed the Removal Act to remove all Native Americans west of the Mississippi River. However, the text and legislative history of the Removal Act clearly demonstrates that removal would not occur unless there was tribal consent. Because many Cherokee did not consent to being removed, in 1838, our government forced their removal, thus resulting in the Trail of Tears tragedy. Chairman J.C. Crawford of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribe wrote to remind me that in 1862 nearly 400 Dakota Indians were tried by a military court without legal representation following a conflict arising out of our government not adhering to its treaty obligations. Eventually, on December 26, 1862, 38 Dakota men were hanged. To date, this has been the largest mass execution in American history. Our government violated the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. Under the Fort Laramie Treaty, our government agreed that if any land is to be taken from the Lakota Nation, three-fourths of all adult males must agree to any cession. Because our government failed to obtain Lakota consent, three prominent historical tragedies occurred, the Battle of Little Big Horn, the Wounded Knee Massacre, and the taking of the Black Hills. Additionally, in the late 1800s, our government violated numerous treaties and embarked upon a harsh assimilationist policy that ignored the foundations of the Federal-tribal relationship. For example, in 1887 our government enacted the General Allotment Act. Under the General Allotment Act, tribal lands were broken up, thus reducing tribal lands from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres in 1934. Although our government ended the harsh policies contained in the General Allotment by enacting the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, by the 1950s our government quickly reversed course and implemented legislation that terminated the Federal-tribal relationship with some Indian tribes. Although many Indian tribes have been successful with regaining federal recognition status, some have not been as successful. Currently, our government is committed to tribal self-determination and empowering tribal governments. However, to make this apology complete and to demonstrate that our government is sincere in apologizing to Indian tribes and native peoples, our government needs to allocate more resources to Indian tribes and native peoples and fulfill its trust obligation found in treaties and concurrent legislation. Our government has adopted numerous laws and policies that undermined and adversely impacted the Federal-tribal relationship. For those reasons, I strongly support the apology articulated in S.J. Resolution 37. I urge my colleagues to similarly support this resolution and reflect on the meaning of the Federal-tribal relationship.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2523, a bill to exempt the Great Plains Region and Rocky Mountain Region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, from trust reform reorganization plans. I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this bill with my friend and colleague Senator Tom Daschle. S. 2523 would exempt the BIA's Great Plains Region and the Rocky Mountain Region from the Department of the Interior's trust reform reorganization proposal, excluding efforts to reform Indian probate and address land consolidation, pending the submission of alternative agency-specific reorganization plans. The bill would direct that any funds appropriated to accomplish trust reform at the agency level in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains Regions could be expended only under plans developed by local tribes in cooperation with and with the approval of the Department of the Interior. The bill authorizes $200,000 for the Great Plains Region and $200,000 for the Rocky Mountain Region to be used for the development of agency-specific reorganization plans. The bill is an alternative to the Department of the Interior's ``To- Be'' trust reorganization plan. The BIA and the Office of Special Trustee, OSI, is in a state of ongoing reengineering of their trust management processes since the Department issued a new Department Manual in April, 2003. Since November, 2003, the Department has conducted informational meeting regarding its ``To-Be'' project, which would reengineer current fiduciary trust business process. This ``To- Be'' plan is unacceptable to our tribes. Simply, the administration's proposed changes to the way tribes receive trust services do not fit the needs of our area. Specifically, our tribes require frequent land appraisals due to our large land base. Currently there is only one appraiser for the entire Great Plains Region. Under a proposed plan, money that would be spent hiring ``trust officers'' would be utilized by hiring appraisers at each agency on each reservation. Furthermore, as a region we are in need of technical positions involving land management, such as surveyors, range conservationists, lease compliance officers, rights of way specialists, and accountants. In sum, the tribes request a reversal of the reorganization process and that resources be redirected as to be more effectively used at the reservation level under control of the local agent. The concepts in S. 2523 are particularly poignant in light of serious questions that have been raised regarding failures in the OST's entire management and administrative system. As a result of these questions, I have requested a wide-ranging investigation of the OST. This investigation centers on a number of concerns tribal leaders have raised in recent years as OST has expanded its mission from one designed to oversee trust reform efforts at the Interior Department to one implementing most major fixes. Under the Bush administration, the agency's budget has dramatically increased while funds for other Indian programs are being cut or flat-lined. In addition to questioning funding considerations, I question whether the OST is operating in a manner consistent with the 1994 Act that created it. During the Bush administration, the agency has seen unprecedented growth and has slowly taken over programs formerly managed by BIA, including cash management, appraisals, probate and accounting. Tribal leaders and some lawmakers say this expansion violates the intent of Congress in creating the office. I am honored to represent a State that has nine treaty tribes. Federally-recognized Indian tribes in South Dakota signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie with the desire to declare peace and thereby perpetuate a nation-to-nation relationship with the Federal Government. The treaty establishing the South Dakota Tribes is a contract negotiated between sovereign nations, relating to peace and alliance formally acknowledged by the signatories of the nations. The United States entered into such agreement because they desired peace and cessions of land from the Sioux Tribes, and in return they made promises that must be upheld. It is important to point out that my treaty tribes opt to receive their services directly from the BIA. As such, it is essential to my tribes that they have a clear understanding of what their Bureau is up to and how its actions will affect the services received by my tribes. In South Dakota, the BIA affects our Indian people every single day. Their partnership with the Federal Government is paramount to their survival as nations and is vital to the health of its people. With this premise in mind, I implore the Department to do a better job of consulting with tribes, appropriately fund BIA programs, and have an open and frequent dialogue with Congress. As a member of both the Appropriations and Indian Affairs Committee, I must be made aware of the Bureau and the Office of Special Trustee's programming plans.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. This bill will allow a one year open enrollment period for thousands of career military personal who are not allowed to sign up for education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). In 1976 Congress created the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) as a recruitment and retention tool for the post-Vietnam era. However, Congress greatly expanded education benefits in 1984 and allowed individuals with VEAP accounts to transfer their benefits to the new MGIB in 1996. The opportunity to convert to MGIB was important because the benefits available were much greater than those under VEAP. However, those individuals who were on active duty before 1985 and did not participate in VEAP were not eligible to sign-up for MGIB, leaving a gap in available coverage for certain career military personnel. Congress has voted several times in the last decade to allow VEAP participants opportunities to transfer to MGIB, but there has never been an opportunity for those who did not have VEAP accounts to sign up for the new program, excluding them from taking advantage of MGIB educational benefits. My bill would correct this inequity and allow individuals falling into this gap to attain MGIB benefits. Organizations such as the Non- Commissioned Officers Association, the Association of the United States Army, and the Military Coalition have come out in strong support for this legislation. I believe that we must do more to honor our Nation's commitments to our military personnel. As the father of a soldier in the Army, I fully appreciate what a poor ``quality of life'' can do to the morale of military families. We have a long way to go, but I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure our country's military personnel receive the benefits they deserve. Today, there are fewer than 74,000 VEAP ``decliners'' on active duty. These men and women have dedicated their lives to a career of service to the Nation, and many are deployed in harms way leading our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. For these servicemen and women--many of whom are reaching retirement eligibility--time is running out. Therefore, before it is too late, I encourage my Senate colleagues to support the Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act and provide our servicemen and women with the benefits they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Daschle amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Mr. President, I introduced the Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act in both the 107th and 108th Congress because I believe the system we use to fund VA health care is broken. Both my legislation and the Daschle amendment would fix this problem and fully fund the Veterans Administration health care system by making VA medical care mandatory, rather than discretionary, spending. Once again, we face a budget that severely underfunds VA medical care needs. Under the budget submitted to Congress by the President, many veterans will not have access to the VA health care system, will have increased copayments and fees, and will face continuing delays to access the care they were promised. And once again, Congress will be forced to make the difficult choices in finding additional funds for the VA. I am concerned that this yearly struggle to find just enough funding for veterans health care is unsustainable it breaks the promises we made to our veterans and threatens the long-term viability of the entire VA health care system. This is what makes legislation such as the Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act and the Daschle amendment particularly interesting. The amendment recognizes the need to automatically calculate the effects of inflation and to factor in the number of veterans utilizing the VA health care system in determining the necessary level of medical care funding. Mr. President, this approach has been endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the American Legion. In addition, the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans--a 15-member panel that was assembled to study the health care needs of our Nation's veterans--has weighed in on this issue. This Presidential task force released their recommendations in a report on May 28, 2003. The report stated clearly that the most pressing problem facing the VA health system is that funding is not keeping pace with the need for care. While the panel encouraged greater cooperation between the VA and the Department of Defense's health care system, they recognized this would not address the fundamental problem. Instead, the panel recommended two solutions to the VA's funding problems: create an independent board which will set the level of VA health care spending each year, or establish a formula to provide a mandatory amount of funding for VA medical care. This second recommendation is the concept contained in the amendment we are debating today. I hope that my colleagues will read the report produced by the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans because I believe it provides a solid basis for supporting the Daschle amendment. I close by discussing why we are debating this amendment today and on this particular bill. Some have questioned including a veterans health care amendment as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act. However, I can think of no more appropriate bill on which to discuss whether or not we are going to live up to our commitments to our nation's veterans. As the father of a soldier who has served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia, I know that poor treatment of our veterans severely impacts our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest for our military. We simply can not separate the issue of the treatment of our troops and the treatment of our veterans. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle for offering this amendment and encourage my colleagues to support our veterans by voting in favor of the pending amendment. Amendment No. 3470

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of Lance Corporal Jeremy Bohlman of Sioux Falls, SD. He was killed on June 7, 2004, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Jeremy was assigned to the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion out of Camp Pendleton, CA. He first went to Iraq in January 2003, before the invasion, and returned to the United States in June 2003. He was completing his second tour of duty in Iraq when he was killed by an explosion while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Jeremy, who was married 2 weeks before being deployed, is described by friends and family as a hard worker with lots of friends who found his niche in the Marines. He served with great distinction and received the Combat Action Ribbon, the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Jeremy's goodwill and service. He inspired all those who knew him. Our Nation is a far better place because of his life. All Americans owe Jeremy, and the other soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service. I express my sympathies to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Jeremy Bohlman. I believe the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President it is my great honor to recognize today the 50th Anniversary of Larson Manufacturing, the Nation's leading manufacturer of storm doors, which is headquartered in Brookings, SD. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Dale Larson, founder of Larson Manufacturing, for his success and thank him for all of the many contributions he and his company have afforded the Brookings community and the State of South Dakota. In addition, as with any successful business, it takes a great team effort to accomplish such a milestone. So to all of the former and current employees of Larson Manufacturing . . . job well done. Larson began as a small factory and now employs over 1,000 people nationwide. Larson storm doors are known for their exceptional quality and superior craftsmanship. What truly makes this company great is the dedication and commitment to quality shared by all of the employees. This company has truly been a model of a good corporate citizen. Mr. Larson is widely known for his generosity to the Brookings community. Among the many charitable projects this company has spearheaded are Larson Park, Larson Ice Arena, and a community bike path. In addition, over 3,000 storm doors are donated to Habitat for Humanity each and every year, making the dream of home ownership a reality for many families. It is with great honor that I share this companies impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor America's veterans of World War II. I am pleased to have this opportunity to thank the millions of Americans who served our Nation during the Second World War. World War II marks the greatest triumph of the United States in the 20th Century. The war has become a symbol of the power of a nation united and a turning point in the history of the world. It is important to note that the service of men and women of the World War II generation went far beyond their sacrifices on the battlefields of Africa, Europe, and the Pacific. After winning the war, they returned home to create a strong, prosperous nation and helped shape America into the beacon of liberty that it is today. I am honored to work along side six World War II veterans here in the Senate. Our colleagues Senators Inouye, Stevens, Warner, Hollings, Lautenberg, and Akaka each answered their Nation's call to duty. I thank them for their service in the military during World War II and for their continued service and leadership in the Senate. I was extremely touched by this past weekend's emotional dedication ceremony of the National World War II Memorial and the opportunity it provided for our nation to honor our World War II veterans. While belated, this memorial provides all Americans with a place to express their appreciation for the men and women who fought in the war and to reflect on the sacrifices of those who died to defeat the evils of tyranny and oppression. Though it is the newest of our war memorials, I believe it has already become a national treasure. I also want to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to the veterans of D-Day. Next week marks the 60th anniversary of the allied landing at Normandy, France. On June 6, 1941, the largest fleet of ships in the history of the world left ports in Great Britain for the coast of France. Aboard these ships were thousands of young Americans who fought and died to gain a foothold on Europe and to help free those who had fallen under the dark shadow of Hitler's forces. These young men were the spearhead of one of the greatest military forces ever assembled and deserve special recognition for their sacrifices. Like so many Americans, members of my own family proudly served in World War II. Both my father and father-in-law served in the military during World War II. I want to thank them and to join with my Senate colleagues in expressing my gratitude to all the veterans of World War II. We are proud and thankful for all that they have done and continue to do in service to the United States of America.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I publicly congratulate Dr. Fred Cholick on a very successful career as the dean of the College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences at South Dakota State University. He has accepted the position as the new dean of agriculture at Kansas State University. Over the years, Fred has been extraordinarily committed to South Dakota agriculture and SDSU. He is one of the most effective agriculture spokespersons the State has ever had. He speaks with compassion about the benefits of agriculture to our State's economy. On a personal level, Fred quickly struck a close working relationship with my staff. He enjoyed working with my office when I secured a seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and Fred experienced the same learning curve we did as we explored various ways to secure Federal funding for SDSU. Despite some setbacks, Fred always kept a positive outlook on the very precarious appropriations process and was incredibly honored that he had the opportunity to work on projects to benefit SDSU and South Dakota's agricultural community. Fred is a real ambassador for agriculture in the State and has done a very effective job at outreach to get everyone in South Dakota to understand the value of our agriculture economy. Fred worked hard to ensure SDSU was a reputable university with respect to animal health, dairy, ruminant nutrition, biotech and other areas of research. He should be given particular credit for working with Associate Dean Kevin Kephart to develop the Sun Grant Initiative into something that may soon become a reality. His vision for the role renewable energy can play in agriculture is cutting edge. Fred has always been an effective advocate for all land grant universities, and that is why his colleagues around the country selected him as their spokesperson. So while always loyal to South Dakota, Fred could effectively speak on behalf of all land grant schools across the United States. He has developed strong relationships with his students as a teacher, as well as the dean of agriculture. He worked hard to ensure the students in the College of Agriculture were getting personal attention and a top-notch education. He cared deeply for those graduating and would help them find employment in their respective fields. Fred was a real champion of value-added agriculture and worked hard to get farmers in South Dakota to understand how to capture larger profits from adding value to the raw goods produced on their operations. Losing Fred is a huge loss to South Dakota and SDSU, and I personally know that he struggled with the decision to leave SDSU for Kansas State. But, in the end, I think it is his undying commitment to agriculture that led him to decide that Kansas State was the right move. His kind of leadership and character is exactly what the agricultural community needs to evolve and survive in the future. I wish nothing but the best for him and his family. It is with great honor that I share his impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly pay tribute to Jeremiah Gumbs. Jeremiah Gumbs was a patriot of both the United States and Anguilla, West Indies. Gumbs served in the U.S. Army in World War II and was a successful businessman in New Jersey, owning Gumbs Fuelers. He went back to his native Anguilla, opened a popular resort on beautiful Rendezvous Bay, and helped Anguilla become less dependent on Britain. Jeremiah and his wife Lydia educated their four children in the U.S. I am pleased to submit for the Record, Jeremiah Gumbs obituary of his remarkable life, which appeared in the New York Times on April 10, 2004: Jeremiah Gumbs, a hotel keeper who became a hero in Anguilla when that sliver of sand upended Britain's postcolonial design for the Caribbean islands known as the Lesser Antilles, died there on Thursday, his family announced. He was 91. Mr. Gumbs, an institution on an island that today has a population of 12,000 people, reached a world audience in 1967 when he went before the United Nations with the islanders' objections to a British plan that lumped Anguilla's 35 square miles into a self-governing state, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, associated with Britain. Considering the 70 miles of blue waters between Anguilla, the northernmost of the Leeward Islands, and the new authorities in St. Kitts, not to mention the many different flags that flew on the islands in between, such as St. Martin and St. Barthelemy, the Anguillans balked. ``After 300 years of neglect as a British Colony,'' Mr. Gumbs told the United Nations, ``the people feel they are able to take care of their own affairs.'' Indeed, he said Anguillans wanted independence. The people of Anguilla voted for it, 1,813 to 5, but Britain did not recognize either the referendum or Mr. Gumbs as a leader of the secessionist movement. But a special United Nations subcommittee on colonialism listened to his formal arguments for Anguilla. It was a ``natural paradise,'' Mr. Gumbs said of the island, but had been left undeveloped under British rule, without running water, electricity, phones, or a decent road. A new highway, built with European aid, has recently been named for Mr. Gumbs. The British protested United Nations involvement, while other Caribbean commonwealth islands sought to mediate. Britain asserted that the island was ``completely dominated by a gangster-type element,'' referring to Mr. Gumbs and the chosen leader of the rebellion, James Ronald Webster. It sent a troop of London's Metropolitan Police force to keep order and stop the secession movement. But efforts to patch the link to St. Kitts failed. In the end, Anguilla got part of what it wanted, becoming a self-governing British dependent territory with its own elected officials, an arrangement codified in 1971 and brought up to date with Anguilla's new constitution in 1982. Jeremiah Gumbs was born in Anguilla, the youngest of nine children; his mother was a baker and his father, a fisherman. He started school in Anguilla, but economic hardship drove him as a boy to work the cane fields in the Dominican Republic. Starting at age 15, he worked for 2 years in oil refineries in Aruba and Curacao before returning to Anguilla to teach himself tailoring. At age 25, he went to live with a sister in Brooklyn and took night classes at City College on a scholarship. He hoped to become a dentist, but was drafted into the Army in 1941 and was given American citizenship at the time. After the war, he married Lydia Gibbs of Perth Amboy, NJ, and, using his G.I. bill money, trained as a furnace installer. He started his own company in Perth Amboy, Gumbs Fuelers, and made a success of it. When he took Lydia to show her Anguilla, it was she who planted the idea for another venture-tourism on the island's untouched beaches. They bought 14 acres, later doubling the amount, and in 1959 started building Anguilla's first beach resort with their own hands. They rented the first rooms in 1962, opening what has become the Rendezvous Bay Hotel and Villas, a cornerstone of the island's growing tourism industry. As a businessman with local roots and a civic leader acquainted with the ways of the world, Jeremiah Gumbs became a natural choice to serve as the island's roving ambassador during the Anguillan revolution of 1967-1969. He managed the hotel until about 5 years ago and remained a jovial host after that. Lydia Gumbs died about 3 years ago. Jeremiah Gumbs is survived by three sons, J. Alan, the managing director and owner of the Rendezvous Bay; Clyde, of Atlanta; and Duane, of Edison, NJ; a daughter, Una, of Edison and Anguilla; and seven grandchildren. It is my honor to share Jeremiah Gumbs impressive life with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Pay for Military Firefighters Act. This bill authorizes hazardous duty incentive pay for our Nation's military firefighters. It may come as a surprise to many of my colleagues, as it did to me, that military firefighters are not currently eligible to receive hazardous duty incentive pay. This issue was first brought to my attention in a letter I received several months ago from an Air Force Staff Sergeant stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base. The letter stated, ``We are in one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. We face danger not only when we deploy like other jobs that get this pay but we face hazards at our home station.'' As the Staff Sergeant said, firefighting is in itself a dangerous profession, but military firefighters must confront a wide variety of threats and are exposed to toxic materials distinctive to the military. The fires they fight often involve fuel and propellants, munitions, or chemicals which present unique and extremely dangerous situations. These servicemembers face risks not only when in combat, but as a part of their every day duties. Despite these dangers, most of the approximate 5,000 military firefighters serving in the Armed Forces are not eligible to receive hazardous duty incentive pay. If these servicemembers are willing to take the risk, our nation should be willing to provide them the benefits they deserve. In addition to being the right thing to do, I believe there are broader reasons to support hazardous duty incentive pay for military firefighters. First, there is an issue of fairness. Federal civilian firefighters, who also face great risk and are critically important to protecting our nation, rightly have risk calculated into their compensation package. This creates a situation where federal civilian and military firefighters, who often work side-by-side, are exposed to the same risk but are compensated differently. Second, it is my understanding that each of the Services supports providing this benefit to our military firefighters because they see it as a manning and retention issue. In fact, according to survey results, lack of hazardous duty incentive pay was cited by military firefighters as one of the top three reasons for morale and retention problems. The Air Force has specifically stated that the lack of hazardous duty incentive pay is a primary factor in poor retention rates among its military firefighters. In my view, providing hazardous duty incentive pay is essential to retaining our best firefighters and maintaining this crucial capability within our Armed Forces. Mr. President, I am pleased the Fair Pay for Military firefighters Act has been endorsed by both the Fleet Reserve Association and the Air Force Sergeants Association and I thank them for their assistance in preparing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of two letters from these distinguished organizations be printed in the Record and the bill be printed in the Record. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Fair Pay for Military Firefighters Act and to extending hazardous duty incentive pay benefits to our nation's military firefighters. There can be no doubt that firefighting is one of the most dangerous professions. Military firefighters understand this threat and deserve the recognition of receiving hazardous duty incentive pay for the sacrifices they make and the risks they take.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Pay for Military Firefighters Act. This bill authorizes hazardous duty incentive pay for our Nation's military firefighters. It may come as a surprise to many of my colleagues, as it did to me, that military firefighters are not currently eligible to receive hazardous duty incentive pay. This issue was first brought to my attention in a letter I received several months ago from an Air Force Staff Sergeant stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base. The letter stated, ``We are in one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. We face danger not only when we deploy like other jobs that get this pay but we face hazards at our home station.'' As the Staff Sergeant said, firefighting is in itself a dangerous profession, but military firefighters must confront a wide variety of threats and are exposed to toxic materials distinctive to the military. The fires they fight often involve fuel and propellants, munitions, or chemicals which present unique and extremely dangerous situations. These servicemembers face risks not only when in combat, but as a part of their every day duties. Despite these dangers, most of the approximate 5,000 military firefighters serving in the Armed Forces are not eligible to receive hazardous duty incentive pay. If these servicemembers are willing to take the risk, our nation should be willing to provide them the benefits they deserve. In addition to being the right thing to do, I believe there are broader reasons to support hazardous duty incentive pay for military firefighters. First, there is an issue of fairness. Federal civilian firefighters, who also face great risk and are critically important to protecting our nation, rightly have risk calculated into their compensation package. This creates a situation where federal civilian and military firefighters, who often work side-by-side, are exposed to the same risk but are compensated differently. Second, it is my understanding that each of the Services supports providing this benefit to our military firefighters because they see it as a manning and retention issue. In fact, according to survey results, lack of hazardous duty incentive pay was cited by military firefighters as one of the top three reasons for morale and retention problems. The Air Force has specifically stated that the lack of hazardous duty incentive pay is a primary factor in poor retention rates among its military firefighters. In my view, providing hazardous duty incentive pay is essential to retaining our best firefighters and maintaining this crucial capability within our Armed Forces. Mr. President, I am pleased the Fair Pay for Military firefighters Act has been endorsed by both the Fleet Reserve Association and the Air Force Sergeants Association and I thank them for their assistance in preparing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of two letters from these distinguished organizations be printed in the Record and the bill be printed in the Record. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Fair Pay for Military Firefighters Act and to extending hazardous duty incentive pay benefits to our nation's military firefighters. There can be no doubt that firefighting is one of the most dangerous professions. Military firefighters understand this threat and deserve the recognition of receiving hazardous duty incentive pay for the sacrifices they make and the risks they take.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the United States remains the only developed nation that does not protect its consumers from drug price discrimination and, as a result, American consumers continue to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Drug spending in the United States and Canada rose by 11 percent last year to $230 billion, which accounts for nearly half of all the worldwide sales. Among seniors, total prescription drug spending rose an estimated 44 percent between 2000 and 2002. In 2002, a Families USA study found that for the 50 drugs most frequently used by seniors that year, prices rose 3.4 times the rate of inflation in 2002. The House Committee on Government Reform report released last year found that seniors who lack drug coverage must pay twice as much for the five most popular drugs as purchasers in foreign countries, those prices being 131 percent higher than the United Kingdom, 112 percent higher than Canada, and 105 percent higher than France. For some drugs, U.S. seniors pay well over twice the price. For example Zocor, a cholesterol medication, costs only $37 in France for a monthly supply, but in the United States that same drug costs $117--over three times as much. A month's supply of Prevacid, an ulcer medication, costs only $42 in the United Kingdom compared to $118 in our country. Clearly, this price discrimination must be addressed. Many, including myself, had hoped that the Medicare drug bill would be the first step in tackling the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Unfortunately, the final product did very little to address these concerns. The new law expressly prohibits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prices. Again, this law not only does not correct the price differential, believe it or not, the new Medicare drug bill signed by the President last December actually prohibits the United States from negotiating lower drug prices the way every other foreign nation does. The United States remains alone. When I traveled to South Dakota earlier this year to discuss the Medicare bill, seniors back home found this astonishing. The new law also includes provisions that will allow the Secretary to prohibit real access to drug reimportation. Meanwhile, the cost estimates of the new prescription drug program continue to rise--to somewhere between $500 billion and $600 billion over 10 years. We are in need of real solutions to this problem. It is my hope a real discussion could occur about drug pricing. What do we do about that gap and about the fact that American citizens pay twice the price or more as citizens of other nations? There are several alternatives. We could allow drug reimportation from Canada or other countries and take advantage of their lower prices, and do so in a carefully monitored way that will secure the safety of those drugs. That would be one course. But, unfortunately, the White House and President Bush are opposed to that. Second, we could be more direct. We could join the rest of the industrialized world and negotiate in behalf of our own citizens lower prices. That is what everybody else does. That is why France, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, Great Britain, Mexico, Canada, and every other industrialized nation have prices far lower than the United States. But President Bush and the administration don't want to do that either. Do you know what their answer is? Their answer increasingly is to use our trade rules not to cut the price of drug costs for U.S. citizens but to demand that other countries raise their drug prices on their citizens. That almost boggles the mind--that the solution is not to lower the cost of drugs for U.S. citizens but to raise them for everybody else in the world. Maybe in this case it is the United States that is out of step and the rest of the world has been in step in terms of drug pricing. The rest of the world has figured it out and we haven't. In this country, we have done an extraordinary job of guaranteeing that the pharmaceutical industry has incredible levels of profits. And, of course, this new effort to use the trade rule would further enhance the profitability of the big drug companies, but it would do little or nothing for U.S. citizens. What good does it do U.S. citizens to know that the citizens of other nations have to pay higher prices? We need to moderate those prices and get the United States in step with the rest of the industrialized world. It is an outrageous tactic to push the U.S. Trade Representative-- USTR--to try to force other countries, through trade agreements, to up the price of prescription drugs in those nations. Most recently, the Speaker of the House and some in the Republican leadership in the Senate have advocated that USTR negotiate with Australia to increase its drug prices within its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS. These proposals are outrageous for several reasons. First, our Government should not be telling other nations how to run their health care system. How would we feel if Australia asked us to develop a universal health care program and do so in a way that would cost our citizens more than was necessary? Many of my colleagues and I do not believe anybody would believe it is appropriate for another country to tell us how we should run our health care system in America. Additionally, I find it inappropriate that some in Congress and the administration find it appropriate to ask other countries to increase their drug prices, but we certainly wouldn't do the same for our citizens at their request. Would we be willing to increase drug prices under the VA program because Australia asked us to? I doubt it. I hope not. Some of our colleagues will say other countries need to share the burden of research and development and that in so doing we will indirectly help to reduce prices in the United States. We should be very clear. Any trade agreement proposal that would require another country to increase its prescription drug prices provides no guarantee that prices will go down for U.S. consumers. Does anyone really believe the pharmaceutical industry, which is reaping the highest profits of any sector of the Fortune 500, wouldn't pocket these as additional profits and say, Thank you, very much? Why would they lower costs to U.S. citizens? There is no data available to indicate that our prices would go down. In my mind, if this argument is the underlying justification for promoting these types of policies, the Trade Representative and members of Congress supporting these plans and the President owe it to our trade partners and American consumers to provide them the data--the proof that American consumers would benefit from increasing drug prices for everybody else around the world. I also think we need to be very careful when making these assumptions--the unspoken assumption here--that research and development is the cause of our higher prices in this Nation. Isn't it the reality--that the lion's share of the prices paid by American consumers is not going into R&D but is going into the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry and its stockholders rather than research and development. There are very few industries that can boast the type of sales claimed by the drug industry, which has enjoyed average annual sale increases of 15 percent in recent years. A Public Citizen June 2003 report found that in 2002 the top 10 drug companies netted profits of $36 billion, or more than one-half of all the profits of all the Fortune 500 companies. While some may argue this increased spending is justified because it reduces other costs of health care spending, the overall rate of health care inflation continues to soar with no end in sight. Beyond straight profits, the pharmaceutical industry continues to increase their spending on direct consumer advertising and lobbying. One study found that eight major American pharmaceutical companies spent more than twice as much on marketing and administrative costs as they did on R&D. For all the talk about research and development, in fact, more than twice of that is being spent on marketing and administrative costs. The Security and Exchange Commission's 2002 financial data finds that for the fiscal year ending in December of 2002, the average profits of Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbott and Wyeth was $5.1 billion, marketing and administration were $5.2 billion and R&D was much less at $2.3 billion. And let's not forget the campaign spending habits of the drug industry. During the 2000 election cycle, the drug industry gave disproportionate support to President George W. Bush and seventy percent of the industry's unprecedented $24.4 million in campaign contributions was spent on Republicans. With all this in mind, I find it very hard to believe that American consumers are carrying the research and development burden, rather than the stockholder profit burden. And given that drug companies spend more on TV ads, marketing and administration than they do on drug research, perhaps we should first ask why the domestic pharmaceutical industry won't spend more of its money on developing new drugs, before we start asking our trading partners to pay higher prices for drugs. The outcome of the Australia trade agreement included requirements that the PBS program in that country provide more transparency in how decisions are made about covered drugs. The PBS system seems to me to be a very good system. Before a medicine can be subsidized by the Australian government, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee or PBAC must recommend that a drug be listed on the PBS. When deciding what drugs make the list, the PBAC takes into account the medical conditions for which the medicine has been approved for use, its clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness compared to other treatments. A drug providing new benefits receives a higher price reflecting that advantage. This system rewards true innovation by the pharmaceutical industry while ensuring value for the taxpayer dollar. This is a well thought out and scientific process and I think the U.S. should at least explore similar steps in order to reduce drug prices under the Medicare program. I also think that the clinical comparative effectiveness analyses that the PBAC conducts are something that we should be making a priority in our country. The U.S. should also establish an independent source of this type of information. Right now, one of the reasons drug costs are so high in the U.S. is because consumers, doctors and purchasers do not have access to objective, unbiased, reliable data to compare how drugs measure up to one another. This type of information would force drug companies to truly compete with one another based on the value of their products. Australia is on the right track here and we should follow suit. With the help of Senator Conrad, I am pleased we were able to obtain support during the Fiscal Year 2005 budget markup for a sense-of-the- Senate resolution supporting $75 million for the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality for getting these types of studies--drug comparative effectiveness studies--that are needed to find out what the real facts are. Having such information available and accessible to physicians and their patients has the potential to reduce our nation's prescription drug expenditures, by enabling doctors to make better informed prescribing decisions. I hope that my colleagues will support funding this year for these fund, which in the long run will mean lower drug prices for all Americans. The very notion that the response from the Bush administration is not to allow cheaper drugs into the United States and not to negotiate lower prices for our citizens the way every other nation does but to try to demand that other countries raise the prices for their drugs indicates that the administration is out of touch and out of tune with the real needs and real priorities of American citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting these proposals and ask that all members of this body work together to achieve real solutions to address the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Staff Sergeant Cory W. Brooks, a member of the South Dakota National Guard, who died on April 24, 2004, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Staff Sergeant Brooks was a member of the 153rd Engineer Batallion, which is based in Winner, SD. He died in a noncombat incident on Saturday. Answering America's call to the military, Staff Sergeant Brooks joined the National Guard in May of 1989 and served as a combat engineer throughout his 15 years of service. Born and raised in Phillip, SD, he was remembered as a dedicated athlete and student. Staff Sergeant Brooks' former football coach in high school, Jerry Rhodes said, ``He was just like family. He was one of those kids you love to work with. He always did good work. He was a very happy-go-lucky kid.'' Jerry Rhodes son, Wade, picked his good friend to be the best man at his wedding in 1995. Wade said of Brooks growing up, ``I spent more time at their house then I did my own. He was just like a brother to me.'' Staff Sergeant Brooks was a very dedicated student and well educated. After excelling at Phillip High School and the University of South Dakota for his undergraduate studies, he went on to obtain his Juris Doctorate from the University of South Dakota. Staff Sergeant Brooks is the second member of the South Dakota National Guard to be killed in combat since the war in Iraq began. Company A, which includes members from Wagner and Winner, was assigned to the 1st Marine Expedition Headquarters. Their company is responsible for defusing roadside explosives. Staff Sergeant Brooks served our country and was a model of loyalty and dedication in the preservation of freedom. The thoughts and prayers of my family, as well as our country's, are with his family during this time of mourning. Our thoughts continue to be with all those families who have children, spouses, and other loved ones serving overseas. Staff Sergeant Brooks led a full life, committed to his family, his Nation, and his community. It was his incredible dedication to helping others that will serve as his greatest legacy. Our Nation is a far better place because of Staff Sergeant Brooks' contributions, and, while his family, friends, and Nation will miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to remember his commitment to service and his family. I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the friends and family of Staff Sergeant Brooks. I know that he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the body for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing the Arthritis Prevention, Control and Cure Act of 2004. This legislation is so important to addressing arthritis and chronic joint problems which are the leading causes of disability in the United States impacting nearly 70 million adults. I want to thank Senators Kennedy and Bond who have been working hard on this legislation over the last year. The prevalence of chronic diseases in the U.S. have become the most significant public health problem of our current day. The beginning of the last century raised many infectious disease public health problems. But safe drinking water, clean working conditions and modern medicines have changed the public health dynamics. While we do need to continue to be concerned about newly emerging infectious diseases such as SARS and West Nile Virus, the biggest threat to our health as a nation is the impact of chronic diseases. It is estimated that by the year 2020, 157 million Americans will suffer from some chronic illness. Whether it be asthma, diabetes, heart disease or arthritis, these conditions are costly to our health care system and erode quality of life. Arthritis and other rheumatic diseases are among the most common conditions in the United States, diminishing mental health and imposing significant limitations on daily activities. One out of every 3, or nearly 70 million adults in the United States suffer from arthritis or chronic joint symptoms. In my home State, approximately 173,000 adults suffer from the disease, or 31 percent of the adult population. Arthritis is exceeded only by heart disease as a cause of work disability. In addition, nearly 300,000 children in the United States, or 3 children out of every 1,000, have some form of arthritis or other rheumatic disease. The costs associated with arthritis are immense. The disease results in 750,000 hospitalizations, 44 million outpatient visits and 4 million days of hospital care every year. The estimated total costs of arthritis in the U.S., including lost productivity exceeds $86 billion. While the current impact of the disease is quite astounding, there is much that can be done to prevent and control arthritis. Despite myths that inaccurately portray this illness as an old persons disease, some forms of arthritis, such as osteoarthritis, can be prevented with weight control and other precautions. More broadly, the pain and disability accompanying all types of arthritis can be minimized through early diagnosis and appropriate disease management. There are many interventions that have been proven effective in reducing the burden of this disease, but unfortunately up until this point, those strategies have been underutilized. The National Arthritis Action Plan, developed by the Centers for Disease Control or CDC, Arthritis Foundation and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, put forward a comprehensive strategy to meet the challenged of addressing arthritis. This legislation puts the action plan into law, directing the CDC and National Institutes of Health to formalize the intentions of that action plan. This legislation enhances support for the implementation of public health strategies consistent with the National Arthritis Action Plan. Through the CDC, the legislation will implement comprehensive arthritis control and prevention programs, developing arthritis education and outreach activities, and conducting research on prevention and treatment across the lifespan. It also includes planning grants in support of innovative research related to juvenile arthritis and supports health care provider training for those specializing in pediatric rheumatology. This bill will also assure that the National Arthritis Action Plan is implemented in a systematic way, and guarantees continued focus on quality research and care for adults and children who suffer from this debilitating disease. The bill provides funds for local demonstration projects, including community-based and patient self-management programs for arthritis control, prevention and care. State and tribal grants will also be made available for comprehensive prevention programs administered by state health departments. While CDC does provide for some grants currently, it is my hope that by moving this legislation forward, eventually, all states will have comprehensive arthritis programs to meet the increasing need. I want to again thank Senators Kennedy and Bond for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I stand today to recognize an individual who is a dedicated advocate for the blind in this Nation, and especially in my home State of South Dakota. Karen was raised in Hibbing, MN. The second of five children, she learned at an early age to cope with people's afflictions. Her brother Robert was born with Down syndrome. It was from this early exposure that Karen gained some of the beliefs that would carry over in later life. At age 11, Karen, herself was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes--the disease that was to define the rest of her life. In 1965, Karen married her long-time love, Marshall. While living in Tacoma, WA, where Marshall was to finish out his military obligation, Karen found a job teaching in the Clover Park school system. In her first year on the job, she experienced her first hemorrhage in her right eye which resulted in complete vision loss in that eye. Because of her love of educating children, she remained on the job teaching despite experiencing a traumatic physical ailment. Marshall and Karen moved to Denver, CO after his military obligation was fulfilled. While in Denver, Karen lost still more of her vision and for all purposes became ``totally blind'' and underwent eye surgery with the hope of restoring some vision to her right eye. The surgery was deemed a cosmetic failure. It was also at this time, that doctors discovered that she was beginning to experience renal failure. In 1969, Karen and Marshall moved to Rapid City where she was hired on as a Juvenile Probation officer. She remained at the position for 6 years until her renal failure had continued to progress so much that she was no longer able to continue her duties. Experiencing kidney failure soon after, her loving brother, David, offered one of his kidneys. After many months of complications delaying the surgery, the transplant was successful. Three weeks later, she left the hospital and her kidney functions have remained excellent for the past 27 years. Following the successful kidney treatment, she was approached by representatives of National Federation of the Blind to become a member. The philosophy of the NFB matched her own; one of independence and the abilities of blind persons, if given a chance. Soon after joining, she became active that same year and was elected state president, a quite remarkable accomplishment. Karen Mayry is the long-time president of the South Dakota Federation of the Blind. For many years, she has provided tireless advocacy for the blind residents of South Dakota and for the disabled population of the State. Under her presidency the State affiliate has grown to five local chapters. She has proposed and lobbied for and had legislation passed bettering the lives of blind South Dakotans. She has testified before the Senate, investigating transportation for the handicapped and has annually made trips to our Nation's Capital to lobby for issues of importance to the blind of the country. She is dedicated to advocating issues of importance, and she is committed to breaking down the structural and attitudinal barriers that impact the blind and disabled community in south Dakota. Her list of organizations is vast and her accomplishments and awards are countless. Despite various physical ailments in recent years, Karen refuses to be sidelined and continues her stalwart advocacy. Her vitality and energy is commendable and her advocacy and education over the years on issues affecting blind and disabled individuals have proven very successful. She works hard to educate and advocate for the Americans with Disabilities Act, helps promote the skills and talents of the blind and educates the business community about the importance of hiring individuals with disabilities. South Dakotans with disabilities have many fighters in their corner, and Karen Mayry is one of their most ardent advocates. Karen doesn't mince words with elected officials, I, for one, have appreciated her frankness and candor over the years. Her insight is valuable on important issues, not only on matters directly affecting blind residents, but also in issues vital to all South Dakotans, disabled and non-disabled alike. As residents in my State prepare for the annual South Dakota Federation of the Blind Convention in Sioux Falls, I take this opportunity to congratulate and commend Karen Mayry for her many years of outstanding advocacy work for the blind. I applaud her dedication and commitment, appreciate her advocacy, and wish her the best in her own individual battle to come. I look forward to continuing my work with Karen concerning issues of importance to the blind and disabled citizens of south Dakota. It is with great honor that I share her impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this week is National Public Health Week, an annual event sponsored by the American Public Health Association or APHA. Every year in April, national, State and local public health professionals highlight an important public health issue, to raise awareness about leading health problems impacting our nation. This year, the theme of National Public Health Week is ``eliminating health disparities''. There are many groups that experience disparities in health, largely a result of limited access to important health care services. Living in a rural area is in itself a health risk factor, due to numerous factors that can adversely influence health and access and the resulting disparities are well documented. Chronic illnesses are more prevalent in rural communities and studies have shown that rural residents are more likely to describe their overall health status as poorer than their urban counterparts. Limitation in activity due to chronic health conditions among adults is more common in rural counties than in large metro counties. The University of Pittsburg's Center for Rural Health Practices released a report this week which highlights specific rural health disparity issues. The report indicated that death rates for children and young adults are highest in the most rural counties. Nationally and within each region, death rates from unintentional injuries increases greatly as counties become less urban. And death rates for motor vehicle-related injuries in most rural counties are over twice as high as the rates in central counties of large metro areas. My home State of South Dakota ranks 8th with two other States for having the worst motor vehicle death rate in the Nation. In addition, adolescents living in the most rural counties are most likely to smoke. For example, in 1999 for the United States as a whole, 19 percent of adolescents in the most rural counties smoked compared with 11 percent in metro counties. This disparity also holds true for adults who smoke. Adults in rural areas are more likely to consume alcohol than those living in other areas, and both men and women in rural areas have higher rates of self-reported obesity than men and women in other areas. Minorities in rural areas also face additional health disparities. Diabetes among Native Americans is more than twice that of the general population, and heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death among this population. Infant mortality among this population is 1.7 times higher than among non-Hispanic whites and the sudden infant death syndrome or SIDS rate among this minority group is the highest of any population group in the nation. It is important that we find ways to address rural public health disparities. Access to health care providers is a critical component of the solution and that is why I have long supported rural provider payment equity. Payment equity ensures that the doors stay open at our local hospitals and physicians offices. I feel that Congress needs to continue to address this important issue and make a commitment to rural residents across America that it will support initiatives to remedy this problem. While payment equity is a critical component in solving this disparity issue, it is only part of the overall solution. Access problems continue to be a distinct challenge in rural communities, due largely to declining rates of health care workers in these areas. In 1998, there were six times as many general pediatricians per 100,000 in central counties of large metro areas as in the most rural counties and five times as many general internists. One of the ways to address this problem is through enhanced funding for important Federal programs that promote the recruitment and retention of health care workers. I have recently sent letters to the leadership on the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Subcommittee, requesting a $63 million dollar increase for Title VIII nurse education programs created under the Nurse Reinvestment Act. I have also asked the committee to restore the President's proposed drastic cuts of almost $200 million for the Title VII health professions programs, by providing $308 million for these programs. In order to further address rural health disparities, we need to strengthen efforts towards establishing a 21st century health care system that utilizes information technology to allow health care professionals across rural America to share their knowledge, expertise and resources. I have worked with my colleagues in the Senate to secure funding in recent years to allow just that, such as the wonderful health information systems project through the Community HealthCare Association of South Dakota, and the nurse distance learning project through the University of South Dakota and the Good Samaritan Society. I encourage my colleagues to continue to build on these types of rural specific projects nationwide so that we may see this dream of a modern 21st century health care system become a reality. In order to address the Native American health disparities problems, in addition to improving access to direct health care services, it is important that we obtain comprehensive data on key health risk factors impacting this population. In South Dakota, the Northern Plains Tribal Epidemiology Center in Rapid City is providing information to tribes and working with tribes to help access health data through good assessment tools, which can be used to develop interventions and improve the health in Native American communities across the State. This is an effective model for approaching a critical minority health problem and the Center combines epidemiology, research, and public health practice to develop interventions that can be disseminated to the tribal communities. Often our best solutions come from the local experts. I look forward to working with public health experts in both South Dakota, as well as the Nation at large, to address these shortfalls in rural health. I believe that the information we gain through these discussions will provide Congress with a broader scope of knowledge, thus allowing us to better meet the needs of those who fall into this health disparity category.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, our support of childcare assistance is essential to ensuring the health and safety of children in working families. Without greater support for childcare, parents of young children may be forced to choose cheaper, poor quality care for their children or fail to provide it entirely. These families need to know their children are cared for while the parents do their part to attain self-sufficiency and to provide for their families. At 73 percent, my State of South Dakota has the highest percentage of children six years of age and younger with both parents working and the highest number of children under the age of 6 in paid daycare, at 47 percent. This is almost double the national average of 24 percent. On average, 1 year of childcare costs families in South Dakota $4,000. This estimate is close to a semester of college at a State institution. A study done by the South Dakota Coalition for Children found that parents seek a safe, nurturing environment for their children when they are under someone else's care. As more and more families need both parents to work in order to make ends meet, safe reliable day care has become essential to the peace of mind of working families in South Dakota and across the country. Without the increased funding for childcare that the Snowe-Dodd amendment provides, more parents will be forced to seek childcare that meets their budgets rather than their hopes for the care of their children. In some cases, families may go without childcare all together. Without the increase in childcare funding provided by this amendment, hundreds of thousands of eligible children will lose childcare assistance over the next 5 years. At a time when only one out of seven eligible children is currently served, I urge my colleagues to strengthen our commitment to children in working families by supporting the Snowe amendment and providing additional resources to increase the number of children able to receive quality care.