Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in my home State of South Dakota and across America, hardworking men and women tirelessly contribute to the production of our Nation's food supply. These men and women consistently preserve the safety and wholesomeness of the commodities they produce, ensuring America's food security and contributing substantially to our overall well-being. During National Agriculture Week, I would like to take this opportunity to thank and celebrate our Nation's farmers for producing plentiful and healthful harvests, and in the face of so many challenges. While agriculture can be a very rewarding endeavor, a farmer experiences myriad challenges outside of their control which affect their bottom line. Regardless of commodity or region, today's family farmer is affected by weather conditions, market concentration, fluctuating prices, uncertain foreign markets, and an ever-changing landscape in the agricultural industry. Family farms in my home State of South Dakota, and across America, not only labor to produce our Nation's food supply, but also to preserve our rural heritage. Agriculture is an economic engine that runs our rural communities, and it is an essential component of a stable and productive America. Despite these challenges, I am hopeful for our Nation's producers and believe that several factors, including our farmers' own persistence and dedication, will contribute to their future successes in the industry. While we continue to struggle with budgetary constraints, I do believe that we will be successful in ensuring that money is allocated for small and medium-sized producers. We must make certain that our Nation's family farms, which comprise the majority of producers, have sufficient access to agriculture funds. The adoption of an amendment to this year's Budget Resolution, which I supported, would alter payment limitations and cap excessive compensation to large farms. This money would instead be channeled toward worthwhile and essential conservation and development programs, which are beneficial to producers in South Dakota and across the Nation. I also believe that fair trade is necessary to ensure our farmers get a fair deal and a fair price for their product. Too often, the market price a farmer receives for his or her product doesn't reflect the financial and personal investment that a producer makes during the growing season and throughout the year. I am confident that new opportunities, like the recently announced trade with China involving quality South Dakota wheat, will open new doors and foster additional opportunities. I also believe that increasing awareness of the negative impacts of some trade agreements, including the Free Trade Agreement with Australia, will aid us in developing a firm base to oppose such measures and encourage more productive trading possibilities. Lastly, I am confident that Country of Origin Labeling, COOL, will greatly benefit our agriculture economy, in addition to increasing consumer confidence and choice. While opponents of the COOL labeling provision were successful in delaying implementation of the law for 2 years, American consumers and producers remain incredibly supportive of mandatory labeling. Every consumer public opinion survey confirms that consumers would pay a modestly higher price for beef if they were certain it was American beef. I contacted the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, in December, requesting clarification of the department's interpretation of the language delaying implementation of COOL. While I strongly oppose this delay, I also believe the department needs to clarify the rulemaking process. The USDA's response to my inquiries was vague and unclear, which I find unsatisfactory. I intend to seek clarification of the rule pertaining to the delay while also actively working on opportunities to speed up implementation of this law. Along with my colleague Senator Tom Daschle, I am pleased to have worked so extensively on this initiative, and I am confident in the future of this quality provision. America's farmers produce quality products, which are recognized the world-over. It is essential that we function as a united team to promote these products in today's ever-changing agricultural environment, and ensure that family farmers in South Dakota and across the nation are recognized and adequately compensated for their substantial contributions.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise here today to publicly honor and recognize Donna Peterson and Sally Stoll for receiving the 2003 Presidential Award for excellence in Mathematics and Science teaching, the Nation's highest commendation for work in the classroom. Donna Peterson won the math award for sharing her innovative teaching approaches with the students at Belle Fourche High School. Sally Stoll won the science award for her knowledge and passion on the subject and the ability to inspire her student's at Vermillion High School. The National Science Foundation, NSF, administers the awards program for the White House. NSF is an independent Federal agency that supports research and education across all fields of science. Since 1983, the White House and NSF have sought nominations of exemplary math and science teachers from every State. In addition to honoring their achievement, the goal of the awards is to expand the definition of excellent science and mathematics teaching exemplified by Donna Peterson and Sally Stoll. These two teachers have provided us with excellent examples of quality teaching. They have a passion for their subjects and dedication to their students. They know how to bring out the very best in every student, in every kind of school. The national award-winning teachers overwhelmingly agree that students frequently respond best to lessons that relate to recognizable phenomena from their own lives, or that allow for hands-on learning. They have observed that an engaging teaching style prompts students to pose their own questions, test their own theories, and arrive at their own solutions, with the teacher serving as a facilitator and guide. Research indicates that nothing is so important in raising student achievement as a good teacher; not top notch equipment, not Internet access, not family income level. Those things are helpful, we know, but it's the teachers themselves that are the ``make or break'' link between students and educational success. United States student performance in mathematics and science has been lagging, and many schools are experiencing shortages of math and science teachers. Donna and Sally are constantly searching for meaningful ways to spark the learning process. In doing so, they will have continued to inspire their students in such a way that it will have enriched them for the rest of their lives. If you are lucky, you'll have a chance to experience at least one such teacher in your lifetime. I congratulate Donna Peterson and Sally Stoll on this tremendous honor. Their dedication to the teaching field in South Dakota serves as a model for all educators to emulate. It is with great honor that I share their impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 2005 Federal budget, I want to address what I believe are the deeply misplaced priorities of the Republican budget plan and the dangerous fiscal course facing the Nation. In 3 short years, the Nation's fiscal health has deteriorated to the point of turning a record budget surplus of $236 billion in 2001 to a gapping projected budget deficit of $477 billion. Instead of working to steady the country's fiscal condition, the budget plan the U.S. Senate is considering will contribute an additional $179 billion to the Federal budget deficit over the next 5 years by permanently extending tax cuts for the richest one percent of American taxpayers. There is another approach. It is an approach that strengthens the fiscal integrity of the government, while addressing the pressing needs of the 40 million Americans without health insurance, ensuring the solvency of the Social Security trust fund, as well safeguarding the homeland. On Thursday, March 4, on a party line vote, the Senate Budget Committee approved a budget that adheres too closely to the President's budget plan and sets the wrong priorities for securing the homeland, creating the conditions for job growth, and tackling the out-of-control Federal budget deficit. Under the budget plan the Senate is considering, the Federal budget deficit would actually increase $179 billion above the Congressional Budget Office CBO baseline. To forestall a further run-up on the government's credit card, the Senate should amend the Republican budget plan by identifying a combination of spending reductions and increases in revenues that will achieve the goals of reducing deficits and strengthening the economy. In 2001, President Bush pushed through a sweeping tax cut on the rationale that the historic budget surpluses built up during the Clinton administration justified reductions in taxes. At that time, the Federal budget was at a record budget surplus of $236 billion and I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, agreed that taxes should be reduced. Now that the fiscal condition of the country has swung deep into the red, it is necessary and prudent to reevaluate permanently extending tax breaks for the highest income levels. Such an approach, in combination with focused spending discipline, could reduce the deficit that threatens the long-term fiscal health of our country. Instead of pursuing this approach, President Bush is asking Congress to make permanent the tax cuts that have put us in this situation. Since the United States is already in red ink, obviously the money for this new distribution will require decreases in important domestic spending and borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. I believe this is a terrible idea when other pressing budget priorities are shortchanged and cut. Our Nation's veterans are currently on year-long waiting lists to get access to VA health care, our rural hospitals and nursing homes are on the verge of closing because of inadequate Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement, our schools are struggling to stay open due to reduced budgets, and the President says we don't have the funds for South Dakota's water projects. Some may see the people affected by these cuts as ``special interests.'' I see them as South Dakotans who should not be short-changed to provide tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest one percent of Americans. I remember when being a conservative meant living within one's means, and that is the strategy our Nation ought to return to. President Clinton had it right when he called for an secured a balanced Federal budget--that meant we were not borrowing from Social Security, we were not creating huge new debts for future generations to pay off, we were creating millions of new jobs, and we were not jeopardizing Medicare and Social Security. Government is about priorities, and the Bush administration's budget priorities are wrong in too many instances. I will continue to do all that I can to redirect our Nation's resources to an agenda that better meets America's domestic needs and our international moral obligations.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President. I want to express my strong support for Senator Murray's amendment to the budget resolution to fully fund the No Child Left Behind, NCLB, Act. Adequate funding is a necessity for school districts to continue to achieve adequate yearly progress. When Congress passed and the President signed NCLB, we set standards of achievement to improve education for all. However, I have been woefully disappointed with the administration's refusal to make good on the promises it made to provide state and local school districts with the resources they need to implement the NCLB reforms. The administration has underfunded NCLB by $26 billion since 2002. In my home State of South Dakota, education officials and educators are working very hard to meet the requirements of this law. It is irresponsible for the Federal Government to say that States and school districts must meet the requirements in this law, while we do not meet the promises made in this law to provide funding to do so. Under NCLB, South Dakota should receive $62.3 million for Title I for Fiscal Year 2005. President Bush's budget would shortchange South Dakota by $24.6 million. This would result in 8,029 South Dakota children being denied full Title I services for which they are eligible. This is unacceptable to me. As I travel South Dakota and meet with superintendents, principals, educators, school board members, and parents, I hear about how hard our schools are working to provide the best education possible to their students. However, this trend of continuing to underfund NCLB commitments will only make it more and more difficult for our local school districts to meet the adequate yearly progress requirements of the law. This Congress and the administration have an obligation to uphold our promise that no child be left behind by the public education system. I encourage my colleagues to support Senator Murray's amendment, which would go a long way in helping our schools meet the challenges in NCLB.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the contributions and accomplishments of a dedicated journalist serving readers in my State of South Dakota. For years, Dottie Potter has served as a reporter covering important news impacting South Dakota's Native American population. As a writer for the Indian Country Today and the Lakota Nation Journal, Dottie is truly a credit to her profession. She has worked hard over the years to educate the general population of the talents, accomplishments and skills of Native Americans in South Dakota. Dottie has helped educate and inform thousands of readers. I have always respected her professionalism and skill as a journalist, and her sensitivity to the issues affecting her readers. Her tireless efforts to dig for details and to explore all sides of particular issues symbolizes her dedication to the field of journalism. She is a well-respected reporter in South Dakota. But she is also well- known for her empathy and care when writing human interest stories. Dottie has delivered stories to her readers on almost every topic, from those that involved the road to success for a favorite son or daughter to words of wisdom from a tribal elder to the plight of South Dakota Indian families. Among the many awards she has received over the years, she received the South Dakota Education Association Golden Apple Award in October of 2002, in recognition of outstanding media coverage of public education issues and events in South Dakota. Dottie now works on a personal story, a fight to overcome cancer. A reporter to the core, Dottie continues to make an impact on her community. With remarkable spirit and bravery, she still works as a reporter with Lakota Nation Journal as she educates, entertains and informs readers. Her fight against cancer serves as an inspiration to others. I congratulate and commend Dottie Potter on her many years as a journalist. Her body of work serves as a long-standing tribute to her commitment to the Native American populations of South Dakota and the Nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly recognize and honor Sharon Stroschein of my Aberdeen, SD staff, who recently was presented with the Athena Award, an honor that is cosponsored by the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce and Johnsons Motors of Aberdeen. The Athena Award is annually presented to an individual who actively assists women in realizing their full leadership potential. The individual must demonstrate excellence, creativity, and initiative in their business or profession. The individual provides a valuable service by contributing time and energy toward improving the quality of life for others in the community. I know first hand that Sharon has done a great deal to improve northeastern South Dakota. She is a tremendously talented woman with a great deal of energy and ambition. Sharon is not only a great friend, she is also the northeast area director for my State office in Aberdeen. She has earned the respect and admiration of all those who have had the opportunity to work with her. Her passion and love for her work have improved the lives of countless South Dakotans. Sharon's friendly demeanor and wealth of knowledge have helped her develop close relationships with her colleagues and with community leaders throughout our State. This friendly attitude has led to numerous elected posts and honors. Among those, she was elected South Dakota's National Committeewoman to the Democratic National Committee. She was also the McGovern Grassroots Award recipient, and Woman of the Year by the South Dakota Federation of Democratic Women. I congratulate Sharon Stroschein for being selected to receive this prestigious award. It is with great honor that I share her impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I proudly introduce the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2004. Remote sensing technology is utilized to map and monitor the surface of the globe. The data we recover through remote sensing equipment contributes to our ability to evaluate and measure a wide scope of variables. The Federal Government incorporates remote sensing data to accomplish many critical tasks from monitoring global food supply and environmental developments to enhancing our national security initiatives. The Landsat program, for example, has collected and distributed a 32- year continuous record of the land surfaces of the world. The program has become so successful that a significant portion of the program's budget is recovered through outside data-sales. Despite the overwhelming success of our remote sensing programs, many state, local, and tribal government may not be familiar with the data or how to apply the data to meet local needs. In addition, there remains significant opportunities for private industry to develop specialized and profit making adaptations based on remote sensing data. The Remote Sensing Applications Act directs the United States Geological Survey to invest in pilot projects to explore the integrated use of sources of remote sensing information to address State, local, regional and tribal needs. This legislation emphasizes the need to develop greater commercial applications for this data and provides the USGS important opportunities to develop public-private partnerships. The Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2004 will build upon the many successes of our remote sensing mission. By investing in adequate infrastructure and by making the appropriate tools available, we can firmly preserve our nation's leadership in remote sensing technologies. By enhancing opportunities to use this technology to more fully address the needs of State, regional, local, and tribal governments, as well as the needs of private industry, we may maximize the global effectiveness of our remote sensing programs. Accomplishing these goals through public-private partnerships has the added benefits of creating new jobs and new markets that may ultimately reduce or replace the need for federal financing or remote sensing policies. I encourage the Senate to fully consider this important legislation and to work expeditiously to enact it into law.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I proudly introduce the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2004. Remote sensing technology is utilized to map and monitor the surface of the globe. The data we recover through remote sensing equipment contributes to our ability to evaluate and measure a wide scope of variables. The Federal Government incorporates remote sensing data to accomplish many critical tasks from monitoring global food supply and environmental developments to enhancing our national security initiatives. The Landsat program, for example, has collected and distributed a 32- year continuous record of the land surfaces of the world. The program has become so successful that a significant portion of the program's budget is recovered through outside data-sales. Despite the overwhelming success of our remote sensing programs, many state, local, and tribal government may not be familiar with the data or how to apply the data to meet local needs. In addition, there remains significant opportunities for private industry to develop specialized and profit making adaptations based on remote sensing data. The Remote Sensing Applications Act directs the United States Geological Survey to invest in pilot projects to explore the integrated use of sources of remote sensing information to address State, local, regional and tribal needs. This legislation emphasizes the need to develop greater commercial applications for this data and provides the USGS important opportunities to develop public-private partnerships. The Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2004 will build upon the many successes of our remote sensing mission. By investing in adequate infrastructure and by making the appropriate tools available, we can firmly preserve our nation's leadership in remote sensing technologies. By enhancing opportunities to use this technology to more fully address the needs of State, regional, local, and tribal governments, as well as the needs of private industry, we may maximize the global effectiveness of our remote sensing programs. Accomplishing these goals through public-private partnerships has the added benefits of creating new jobs and new markets that may ultimately reduce or replace the need for federal financing or remote sensing policies. I encourage the Senate to fully consider this important legislation and to work expeditiously to enact it into law.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly recognize Mr. Gary York of Yankton, SD, for receiving the Defense of Freedom Medal. There was little doubt that active-duty military members killed or injured in a hostile attack would receive the traditional Purple Heart, but the Defense of Freedom Medal marks the first time in United States history that civilians have been formally recognized for wounds received in combat. This medal exemplifies the principles of freedom and defense of the freedoms upon which our country was founded. Gary is not just a good friend, he is also a dedicated worker. He currently serves as the power plant senior controller at Yankton's Gavin's Point Dam. Answering the President's call to volunteer his time in Iraq, he left for Iraq in September and was overseeing a crew of workers who were rebuilding 400,000 volt power lines running from power plants to switchyards in Baghdad. While spending Christmas Eve in Iraq, away from his family and friends and the comforts of home, Gary sustained wounds to the head and shoulder while traveling in a convoy near Balad. The convoy was attacked by unknown assailants using small firearms. Two Iraqi security guards traveling with the convoy were killed in the attack. It is with great honor that I share Mr. York's tremendous accomplishments with my colleagues. He is a true patriot, and America is deeply grateful for his service.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak in support of the transportation bill now pending before the Senate and urge my colleagues to support final passage of the legislation. This is an important bill that will create thousands of wellpaying jobs, make needed investments to the Nation's bridge, highway, and mass transit infrastructure while injecting billions of dollars a year into the economy and saving commuters millions of hours on the roads. The chairman and subcommittee chairman along with the ranking member and the senior Senator from Nevada have worked hard to craft a highway bill that balances the often conflicting needs of the States. Similarly, as a member of the Banking Committee, I want to recognize the bipartisan manner in which the chairman and ranking member worked with all colleagues to craft a transit package that meets the varying transit and bus service needs for our constituents. In my remarks, I follow a host of other Senators who have come to the floor over the past week to highlight the importance of passing a robust transportation bill. In many respects, the matter we are debating has a more direct and daily impact on our constituents than just about any issue the Congress considers. Reducing accidents through increased road safety, replacing and refurbishing aging infrastructure, and moving people more efficiently and effectively go directly toward improving the quality of life throughout the Nation. South Dakota is a large State and its citizens often time have to travel extraordinary distances to visit friends and family, receive medical care, or connect to major economic markets. With thousands of miles of roads, efficient, reliable, and dependable transportation is directly linked to the prosperity of rural America and our quality of life. The first emphasis of a transportation bill should be on a robust highway program. Without a comprehensive Interstate Highway System and secondary feeder roads it would be very difficult for the constituents of my state and those in other rural places to travel and earn a living. The bill before the Senate recognizes the national interest in transportation in and across rural America. Passing a highway bill is also good for our economy. The jobs created through this legislation are permanent, high-paying jobs that will spur further economic development and put people to work in what has largely been a jobless economic recovery. According to the South Dakota Association of General Contractors, if the Congress passes this highway bill over 20,000 new jobs will be created in my State in the next 6 years. The importance of passing the bill goes beyond job creation. Good highways in rural areas also enable agricultural products and natural resources to get from source to market. The farm-to-market road system developed by the State depends upon a vast and reliable network of interstate highways, in good condition, to move products throughout the country and grow the economy. As a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee with jurisdiction over bus and transit programs, I believe that the transportation bill makes important investments in rural and urban transit. Transit and especially bus service; however, is an important link in rural America where social service providers, local governments, and state agencies struggle to provide reliable bus service. Federal aid to transit and buses is the crucial link ensuring that reliable and dependable service exists throughout many communities. In meeting with transit providers across South Dakota, I fully understand the unique challenges toward providing reliable and dependable bus service over longer traveling distances. Although routes are more heavily used in urban areas, certain basic needs for public transit remain constant in urban and rural areas: there must be a driver, parts must be purchased, and costly, but necessary, insurance obtained. The transit title considered by the Senate recognizes for the first time these unique challenges in constructing a financing mechanism that will grow rural transit and enhance service. Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes deserve much of the credit for working with rural state Senators on the committee to incorporate this provision in the final bill. It is vitally important that the Senate pass the transportation, transit and road safety bill pending before the Senate. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am pleased that the committees constructing this bill did so within the budget framework this body adopted last year. The Senate-passed Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution called for a six-year transit program totaling $56.5 billion. The Senate Finance and Banking Committees have worked diligently to construct a comprehensive and forward-looking bill that stays within the budget while addressing the Nation's critical infrastructure needs. Mr. President, as the Senate considers legislation to reauthorize Federal transportation programs, I want to take a few minutes to address the transit programs authorized in the bill. As a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee with jurisdiction over bus and transit programs, I believe that the transportation bill makes important investments in rural and urban transit. Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes have performed an admirable job in constructing a transit title that enhances bus and transit service in large metropolitan areas, as well as rural States like mine. South Dakota is a large State and its citizens oftentimes have to travel extraordinary distances to visit friends and family, receive medical care, or connect to major economic markets. With thousands of miles of roads, efficient, reliable, and dependable transportation is directly linked to the prosperity of rural America and our quality of life. The first emphasis of a transportation bill should be on a robust highway program. The bill before the Senate recognizes the national interest in transportation in and across rural America. Transit and especially bus service, however, is an important link in rural America where social service providers, local governments, and State agencies struggle to provide reliable bus service. Federal aid to transit and buses is the crucial link ensuring that reliable and dependable service exists throughout many communities. In meeting with transit providers across South Dakota, I fully understand the unique challenges toward providing reliable and dependable bus service over longer traveling distances. Although routes are more heavily used in urban areas, certain basic needs for public transit remain constant in urban and rural areas: there must be a driver, parts must be purchased, and costly, but necessary, insurance obtained. The transit title considered by the Senate recognizes for the first time these unique challenges in constructing a financing mechanism that will grow rural transit and enhance service. The transit title recognizes the special challenges facing low density states by creating a new rural density program for rural transit and elderly and disabled transit. By calculating the population density of a State along with the size of the State, the program ensures that rural States with demonstrated transit needs will receive a fair share of the billions of dollars in new transit spending over the next 6 years. As a proponent of the new rural program it is necessary to recognize the indispensable role of Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes toward ensuring that this program was included in the transit mark. Senators from both sides of the aisle worked in a constructive and bipartisan manner that produced a product that was unanimously supported by the Banking Committee. The consequences of our actions mean that transit providers in Pierre, Huron, Aberdeen, and other South Dakota communities will be able to expand service at a time when the demand for rural bus service is increasing. Connecting people in rural America to medical care, jobs, and family and friends is the legacy of this bill. Therefore, it is vitally important that the Senate pass a transportation bill and incorporate the transit title into the broader transportation and road safety legislation pending before the Senate. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am pleased that the various committees constructing this bill did so within the budget framework this body adopted last year. The Senate-passed Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution called for a 6-year transit program totaling $56.5 billion. The Senate Finance and Banking Committees have worked diligently to construct a comprehensive and forward-looking bill that stays within the budget while addressing the crucial bus and transit infrastructure demands facing our country.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I today publicly recognize Myron Edleman on his retirement from the Farm Credit Council. He has had the honor of representing farmers and ranchers in American agriculture since the mid-1980s when he was first elected to his first Farm Credit System entity board of directors. Over the years, the system configurations may have changed but Myron's service to the system remains as dedicated as it was when he first walked into a board room. He has served as an association director, a bank director and as representative on the Farm Credit Council. Additionally, he has been appointed to select committees, advisory committees, search committees and other system assignments too varied and too numerous to itemize. His tenure at Farm Credit has been mutually rewarding. He takes with him friendships and associations that he will forever treasure and leaves behind a legacy of commitment and effectiveness which few involved in the system have equaled. Myron was born and grew up in Willow Lake, SD. He was an outstanding student at Willow Lake High School and served as valedictorian of his senior class. He lettered 16 times, once a year for football, basketball, and track. He was named to All-State teams in both basketball and football. Despite an opportunity to try out as a catcher for the Chicago Cubs, Myron instead opted for a football scholarship at Kansas State University. But his love, known even then, was ranching and instead of pursuing his college education, he returned to Willow Lake to go to into partnership with his father. Returning to Willow Lake, he married his high school sweetheart, Jean Brower, raised three children, and was a vital part of this small South Dakota community. He served as an elder and a deacon of the Presbyterian Church and was a member of the Gideons. He served also on the Willow Lake Farmers Elevator board of directors for many years. He and his father worked together raising purebred Hereford bulls and today's Edleman Ranch is a fourth generation operation which he owns and operates with his eldest son, Marshall. Together they run a Red Angus commercial cow/calf operation. He is also involved with sons Marshall and Jason as joint owners of the Split Rock Cattle Company. Additionally, he is chairman of Beef Origins, a family-owned business which is involved in a computer based livestock identification program. Unexpectedly, Jean passed on in 1989. Myron's in-depth knowledge of both the livestock and farming industries has proven invaluable in his ability to represent farmers and ranchers in a positive and effective manner. His ability to articulate that knowledge and share it in a meaningful way has also been essential to the success he has achieved as a director. And his unwavering commitment has been without peer. No matter how last minute the meeting, how inconvenient the conference call time or how many times flights had to be re-booked. Myron has always been there, on time and on top of the issues. Add to this mix his strong personal characteristics of honesty, integrity and a keen intelligence, plus a handshake that conveys not only strength but honor, and it is easy to see why Myron is widely regarded as the most respected and effective director in Farm Credit System. Always able to separate his personal politics and opinions from his directorial duties, Myron has worked unceasingly for agriculture and those who are part of the industry in an unbiased and professional manner. His countless contributions will be missed not only by his colleagues and his friends, but by agriculture as a whole. We are grateful for his service and wish continued success for his future. Myron looks forward to spending his retirement with his wife Anne whom he married in 1992. It is with great pleasure that I share his impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of SSG Kenneth Hendrickson of Bismark, ND. Kenneth was killed on January 24, 2004, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Kenneth, who was called up for active duty last spring, was scheduled to leave Iraq in March. He was one of two North Dakota Army National Guardsmen killed by a roadside bomb while traveling near Fallujah. Kenneth was a member of the Bismarck-based 957th Multi-Role Bridge Company and a 15-year veteran of the National Guard. Kenneth, a computer technician for Bismarck public schools, was married just 4 days before being deployed. Born in Fargo, Kenneth lived with his family in Bismarck. His father Lyle Hendrickson lives in Rapid City, SD and is a Pennington County commissioner. Kenneth is described by family members as a free spirit who loved children and knew how to have fun. Even while in Iraq, his number one concern was his family back home. Kenneth and his fellow National Guard members are playing a vital role in Iraq. These brave men and women have taken time away from their family, friends, and jobs to serve their country thousands of miles from home. Kenneth and many other National Guard members have given the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom. Our country owes them a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Kenneth's goodwill and service. He inspired all those who knew him. Our Nation is a far better place because of his life. The best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I express my sympathies to the family of Kenneth Hendrickson. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as we commence the second session of the 108th Congress, I want to take this opportunity to bring attention to a serious health problem that our Nation faces everyday. This health care dilemma encompasses all ages, genders, and races in our Nation. I am referring to diabetes, which impacts 18.2 million people in the United States, or 6.3 percent of the population. As we embark on this session, we need to reconfirm our commitment to addressing a key objective of many in Congress to fight this chronic health problem which threatens the lives of millions. The American Diabetes Association, as well as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention or CDC, has stated that of the 18.2 million Americans living with this disease, only an estimated 13 million have been diagnosed, therefore leaving 5.2 million people, or nearly one- third, completely unaware that they have the disease. There are three major types of diabetes; Type 1, Type 2, and gestational diabetes. Type 1 diabetes results in the body's failure to produce insulin. The ADA believes that 5-10 percent of Americans who are diagnosed with diabetes have Type 1. Type 2 diabetes results from insulin resistance, combined with relative insulin deficiency. Approximately 90-95 percent, 17 million, of Americans who are diagnosed with diabetes have this type of diabetes. Gestational diabetes affects about 4 percent of all pregnant women--about 135,000 cases in the United States each year. About 110,814 Native Americans and Alaska Natives, or 14.9 percent of the population, receiving care from Indian Health Services, IHS, have diabetes. Diabetes is associated with many other serious chronic health conditions. About 65 percent of deaths among people with this illness are due to heart disease and stroke. Heart disease is the leading cause of diabetes-related deaths, while the risk for stroke is 2 to 4 times higher among people with this illness. About 73 percent of adults with diabetes have high blood pressure or use prescription medications for hypertension. Diabetes is the leading cause of new cases of blindness among adults aged 20-74 years, with diabetic retinopathy causing 12,000 to 24,000 new cases of blindness each year. Diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease, accounting for 44 percent of new cases. Sixty to 70 percent of people with diabetes have mild to severe forms of nervous system damage. The results of such damage include impaired sensation or pain in the feet or hands, slowed digestion of food in the stomach, carpal tunnel syndrome, and other nerve problems. In addition, this contributes to more than 60 percent of lower-limb amputations each year. Gum disease is more common among people with diabetes, thus placing young diabetics at twice the risk of those without this condition. Poorly controlled diabetes before conception and during the first trimester of pregnancy can cause major birth defects in 5 percent to 10 percent of pregnancies. Poorly controlled diabetes during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy can result in excessively large babies, posing a risk to the mother and the child. Uncontrolled diabetes often leads to biochemical imbalances that can cause acute life-threatening events, such as diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar coma. People with diabetes are more susceptible to many other illnesses, and once they acquire these illnesses, often have worse prognoses, such as being more likely to die with pneumonia or influenza than people who do not have diabetes. In 2002, 47,555 or 6.3 percent of South Dakotans, were diagnosed with diabetes. And when applying the national estimate that nearly one-third of all diabetes cases go undiagnosed, this would add an additional estimated 15,693 cases. This means that the most recent number of South Dakotans with diabetes could be an estimated 71,000 people. Also, important to South Dakota are estimates by the American Diabetes Association that Native Americans have a higher rate of diabetes, which makes this group 2.2 times more likely to have diagnosed diabetes as non-Hispanic whites of similar age. A report showed that the indirect costs associated with diabetes were $40 billion in the United States in 2002, while direct medical costs were approximately $92 billion, therefore bringing the overall costs in our country to $132 billion. It is estimated that each year there are 1.3 million new cases of diabetes diagnosed in people aged 20 and older. Increased emphasis on prevention will help reduce the incidence of new cases and be a step in the right direction to reduce the social, economic and human costs associated with diabetes. Congress has the ability to enhance Federal programs and increase funding to combat this debilitating illness. I was pleased to see the bipartisan dedication to doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, over a 5-year period, which was completed in 2003. This initiative alone has helped to expand current research, which therefore improves the path toward finding treatment and cures of all diseases, including that of diabetes. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I was pleased to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to request $1.6 billion for the National Institute of Diabetes and Kidney Diseases for fiscal year 2004. In addition to NIH, we must continue to fight to secure increased funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. The CDC provides invaluable research on chronic diseases such as diabetes, and helps fund important state program such as the South Dakota Diabetes Prevention and Control Program, DPCP. I encourage both Congress and the President to continue to build on existing efforts to address diabetes through increased funding for NIH, for the Institute of Diabetes and Kidney Diseases, and for the CDC in the upcoming year. I believe that we can achieve this goal in bipartisan fashion and provide greater assistance to the many Americans in all parts of our Nation that live with this chronic illness.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to speak about country-of- origin-labeling, an issue of critical importance to farmers, ranchers and the consumers in our great country. Yet even as our country grapples with its first case of mad cow disease, the Republican leadership and special interest groups aligned with the packing industry celebrate the possible delay in the implementation of my country-of-origin labeling law. Yes, country-of-origin labeling is the law. We voted on it and it was included in the last farm bill. Yet today I stand before you, concerned that an action in the dead of night by certain House members will sink this law, a law that is good for consumers of beef as well as producers of beef. Country-of-origin-labeling will help American producers market their beef as the superior product we know that it to be. It will also help American producers choose a product they know is safe while avoiding foreign product produced without the safeguards provided by the United States Department of Agriculture. Just a few weeks ago it was discovered that a cow from Canada was discovered with mad cow disease, yet consumers have no way to distinguish meat from a Canadian cow from meat from an American or Mexican cow. As recent events have shown Americans still have confidence in American beef and we must give them the ability to choose that beef. This law is also critical to our ability to begin exporting beef to countries, such as Japan, that closed their border to our beef after the recent case of mad cow in Washington State. Forty-eight out of 57 of the United States' largest trading partners, including Japan, have country of origin labeling. Why can't we? I ask, why can't we? It dismays me, that there are people opposed to this law. It will allow consumers to make their own decisions about food safety, a critical issue in today's world of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article written by Lee Pitts titled ``Who Killed COOL?''

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to CPT Chris Soelzer, a resident of Sturgis, SD who died on December 24, 2003, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Captain Soelzer was a member of the Headquarters Company of the 5th Engineer Battalion, which was based out of Fort Leonard Wood, MO. He was among three soldiers killed when a roadside bomb hit a military convoy near Samarra. Answering America's call to the military, Captain Soelzer wasn't sure he was going to make a career out of the Army. However, according to his brother, ``he was a soldier, that is what he lived for.'' A born soldier, he had attended Kemper Military School and College after graduating from Sturgis High School. A member of the school band, chorus group, and the track team, friends remember him as a quiet and gentle person. Captain Soelzer's former principal recalls that ``he was a real gentleman, a real nice kid who was involved in a lot of things.'' Dave Mueller, a friend from high school remembers Captain Soelzer as a bright individual and remarked that ``Academics was his big thing. I think he was close to straight A's.'' Captain Soelzer served our country and, as a hero, died fighting for it. He served as a model example of the loyalty and dedication in the preservation of freedom. The thoughts and prayers of my family as well as the rest of the country's are with his family during this time of mourning. Our thoughts continue to be with all those families with children, spouses, and loved ones serving overseas. Captain Soelzer 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 Captain Soelzer's contributions, and, while his family, friends, and Nation will miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to service and community. In the words of Dave Mueller, ``He was also a person who you'd barely have to know him and he would do everything for you.'' I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of Captain Soelzer. I know that he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten. sergeant dennis a. corral

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to voice my concern over secret riders that were jammed into the Omnibus appropriations bill behind closed doors, in the dark of night, that are contrary to the bipartisan wishes of the Senate and, in some instances, both the House and Senate. It is an abomination of a process that has taken place. It has very real negative consequences. The bill, as a whole, does some good things. I commend Chairman Stevens for his hard work in that regard. But there are these riders that were stuck in the bill that make no sense. Some have been alluded to already, such as the allowance of greater media concentration than this Senate wanted; the privatization of FAA air traffic control personnel; the question of vouchers, at a time when we are $9 billion short of funding No Child Left Behind as it is, and that funding is further undermined by subsidization of private schooling. The question of overtime pay is perhaps the most outrageous of all. Eight million American workers are going to be denied overtime pay under this rider that was stuck into the bill. There was no conference in a meaningful sense. They were simply done behind closed doors. The deliberations were, frankly, the Republican leadership working with the White House, and they stuck the provisions in and came back to this body and said: Take it or leave it. I believe we can have the merits of the larger portion of the Omnibus bill and simply have these provisions struck. It would be simple to do. One of the provisions that is most troubling in my State of South Dakota, and in rural areas, is a provision that would delay country-of- origin meat labeling for 2 years--probably beyond that--at a time when we are struggling with BSE, mad cow disease. Our consumers should understand that our Nation has the safest, highest quality meat in the world, bar none. Canada has struggled with the BSE issue. One of their cows showed up in the U.S. We need to see to it that we respond aggressively to make sure Americans have confidence in our meat supply, and that the world community also understands the quality product that comes from the United States. Right now Japan, Korea, and the rest of the buyers of American beef abroad have told the United States: We like your beef, the meat products you produce, but we don't want to buy it if you cannot certify to us that it is, indeed, an American product. We are one of the few industrialized democracies in the world not to have country-of-origin labeling. We don't have it. It is long overdue that we join the rest of the industrialized world in allowing our consumers to know the origin of the meat products they buy so they can buy an American product if they choose, and when it comes time to exporting our product, that the Japanese, Koreans, and the rest of the world will know it is an American product they are buying, as opposed to being a mingling of U.S., Canadian, and Heaven knows what else that goes through the U.S. into the export market. So for the sake of our domestic confidence and of our export markets, the time is overdue that we join the rest of the world--the EU and the Canadians--in identifying the origins of these meat products. What has happened is that this 2-year delay, which would lead to still further delay, ironically at a time when the USDA is telling us they want to implement an electronic tracking system for every animal in the U.S., which is a far more expensive, far-reaching proposal than country-of-origin labeling ever was; every country has been able to do it without expense, without bureaucracy, or any problem for the producers. There is no reason the U.S. cannot do it as well. So what we have is a convergence of those who are profiting by not allowing American consumers to know the difference in what they are buying, along with those in the White House who have a philosophy of a global agricultural market with no borders whatever, which leads, of course, to that race to the bottom, where whoever can sell the product for the cheapest price wins. American producers deserve better. This Congress deserves a better bill than what we have before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to publicly congratulate Kirk Cordes of Rapid City, SD, for receiving the Ag Producer of the Year award at the Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce Ag Appreciation banquet. The Ag Producer of the Year is awarded to one recipient a year who distinguishes themselves in the Agricultural Business Community in South Dakota. The award has been given out since 2001. The award goes to a person who uses the most recent and innovative technology to further advance the agriculture industry for the better. Kirk Cordes understands the word perseverance. Mr. Cordes was raised on a ranch outside of Elm Springs, SD, where he attended elementary school in a one room school house. After graduating from South Dakota State University in 1970 with a degree in agriculture/business, he worked hard and saved his income. In 1973, the hard work and determination paid off. He bought his mother and father in-law's 6,800 acre ranch, and he and his family have owned and operated the ranch ever since. Kirk Cordes has been recognized numerous times for his devotion to the agricultural industry in South Dakota. Among his numerous awards, he is a member of various organizations and serves on many boards. He is a past director of the Pennington County Soil Conservation District. He has also been a past director, vice president and State president of the South Dakota section for range management and recipient of Rangeman of the year for South Dakota in 1983. He is a current member of the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Rapid City Area Chamber Ag Committee and the Western South Dakota Buckaroos. For the past 10 years, he has been president of the West River/Lyman Jones Rural Water Systems, which is part of the Mni Wiconi Water Project. After 30 years of ranching, Kirk and his wife Kathy will be turning the ranch over to their son and daughter-in-law. I am pleased that his agricultural leadership is being publicly recognized and that his achievements will serve as a model for all outstanding agricultural producers throughout the State to emulate. It is with great honor that I share his impressive achievements with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President I rise today, conflicted about the conference report now before this body. Shortly, my colleagues and I will be faced with making a very important decision regarding whether or not we think this Medicare conference report is good enough for America's seniors. This is not a simple task as there are so many moving parts, each with its own implications. The Senate bill, which I supported was not perfect. While it had its flaws, it represented a bipartisan effort and a first step towards providing the kind of prescription drug coverage seniors need. With the conclusion of that vote, I remain cautiously optimistic that conferees would be able to deal with some of the inherent problems in that bill. I was hopeful that conferees would find a way to eliminate or come very close to eliminating the employer-sponsored retiree coverage drop problem. I was hopeful that conferees could maintain the level playing field between traditional Medicare and private plans. And I was optimistic that progress could be made on reducing the high cost of prescription drugs that Americans pay compared to the rest of the world. I was hopeful and confident, but I must unfortunately report today that those feelings are now all but entirely lost. I am discouraged that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle abandoned the bipartisan spirit of the conference committee. Senator Daschle, who has always been a strong leader on this important health care access issue, as well as many other Democratic members, had been completely shut out of the conference committee. This is a very unfortunate circumstance, and the result today is obvious. It is obvious because now we are faced with a conference report that does not represent a fair balance between the strong Senate bill and the bill passed by a 1-vote majority in the House. Rather, today we have a conference report that moves to privatize Medicare, actually prohibits the government from negotiating lower drug prices, and puts rural and chronically ill seniors at risk of suffering higher premiums than their urban and healthier counterparts. All of these things weigh on my mind as I think about this very important vote. And I am especially frustrated that the majority has intentionally held the rural provider package hostage. This package should have been passed with the tax bill, but President Bush made a convenient promise to our Republican friends to address this issue in the context of the Medicare prescription drug bill and they have now created the illusion that a no vote for this bill equates to a lack of support of rural provider payment equity. Well, this is simply not true. Many of my colleagues on the Rural Health Caucus have worked tirelessly over many years to achieve payment equity for our providers. I would like to thank all members of our caucus, and especially Senator Harkin for his hard work on this issue. I have long supported these important provisions, which were all contained in the better Senate-passed bipartisan bill. And while I am pleased that the Senate bill's rural provider package has made it into the conference report, I am very concerned about the actual drug benefit. While the conference report appears to do a pretty good job of addressing the prescription drug needs of many low-income beneficiaries, most seniors, especially those above 150 percent of poverty will be expecting much more than what they will receive under the program. This will be a shocking wake up call for many around the country when the plan finally reaches them in 2006. Not only will seniors across the country experience varied premium rates and benefits, but many seniors will not break even under the plan, spending more in premiums, copayments and deductibles than the value of the drugs they need in a given year. In South Dakota, about 16.6 percent of the Medicare population will fit in this category. This is not what seniors are expecting and they should know this right away--up front. Additionally, many beneficiaries will hit the coverage gap and remain there for a long period of time in any given year. In my home State, approximately 24.4 percent of seniors will hit the coverage gap of $2,250 but never reach the catastrophic level of $5,100, meaning they wind up paying 100 percent of their drug costs or $2,850 while continuing to pay a monthly premium to their PPO or drug-only plan. I know that South Dakotans will be saying to me in the fall of 2006 that rather than pay for a deal like that, they might as well just take a bus trip up to Canada to get their drugs for a much cheaper deal. In addition to these less than ideal benefits, I am angered that this bill does almost nothing to constrain the rising cost of prescription drugs. I am pleased that provisions have been included to speed access to lower priced generics, however beyond that, it is blatantly obvious that many have gone to great lengths to establish roadblocks against real price reform. The conference report disallows the Secretary any real authority to negotiate for lower priced drugs for the 41 million seniors that will be eligible for this program. This is the real tragedy in this conference report of which people across America must be made aware. Disturbing are the estimates that the pharmaceutical industry will experience windfall profits of at least $139 billion dollars over eight years as a result of this new program. Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk of ``free market'' and ``fiscal discipline'' but went far beyond turning the other cheek when they struck the Senate's reimportation provisions that disallowed drug manufacturers to restrain their exports to other countries. This is not free market colleagues and such excess will eventually threaten the viability of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. I am also concerned that while conferees have provided some dollars in the final report to address the loss of employer-sponsored retiree drug coverage, we have only partly addressed this problem. I was pleased to see that conferees allotted funds to address this issue in part. And while the conference report reduced the drop rate by about 14 percent, 23 percent of seniors will still lose the generous retiree coverage they now enjoy. Additional dollars were available in the budget to further reduce this number. Unfortunately, conference leadership chose to spending billions on health savings accounts, which have nothing to do with Medicare or the prescription drug benefit, and only serve to help healthier and wealthier Americans save money on the costs of their health care. I find this very disappointing and, frankly, unacceptable. There are countless others in my State and across the country that are left out under the so called ``agreement'' before us. In South Dakota, 14.1 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are also eligible for Medicaid. These ``dual eligibles'' were protected under the Senate bill by maintaining their generous Medicaid coverage. Under the final version, those individuals will suffer higher copayments and will run the risk of losing access to important life-saving medications if a particular drug is not covered on their new Medicare drug formulary. Additionally, in my State thousands fewer seniors will not qualify for the low-income protections because the conference report reduced the poverty threshold from 160 percent as was in the Senate bill to 140 percent, as well as instituted a strict assets test for low-income benefits. Of most concern to seniors in rural South Dakota will be the proposal's heavy reliance on managed care. In my home State, currently there are no beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare+Choice program. If we take lessons from that fact, one that is mirrored in many rural states, we must conclude that the managed care options in this conference report are not likely to have much success in those areas. The Senate bill did contain a strong fallback provision which would have provided real choices to rural seniors. Under the bill I supported, if two ``prescription drug only plans'' of PDP's were not available in a given region, seniors would have the choice to select a government-run fallback option. It is my understanding that under the conference report that guaranteed fallback trigger is restricted because only one PDP and one managed care plan are required to prevent the fallback from being made available. This scenario means that a senior in South Dakota has to choose between two bad options: be forced into a managed care plan and lose the choice of their doctor to achieve affordable drug prices, or join the only PDP plan in the region that enjoys a captive market which allows them to charge whatever premium they desire. The managed care plans under this conference report will be able to achieve lower prices for seniors because they will enjoy over $12 billion in slush fund money from a so called ``stabilization fund'' that is included in the conference report language. These are not options or choices nor do they represent a level playing field for traditional Medicare, and I fear they will hurt rural America and represent the first steps in a scheme being pushed by this Administration to fully privatize the Medicare program. With a budget allocation of $400 billion this year for a new Medicare drug benefit, Congress had a great opportunity to reach a long awaited goal. The bill I supported in the Senate was the start in the right direction towards meeting that goal and I am so disappointed that what is before us today has taken far too many steps in the wrong direction. Colleagues, seniors deserve better than this and I deeply regret I cannot support this conference report.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, today my father, Van Johnson, is celebrating his 90th birthday. He is joined by my mother Ruth, my brother and sister and their spouses, dad's sister Ardis, and a great many wonderful friends. I had long planned to be there to join in this celebration, but the Senate failed to adjourn on time, and now is staying in session through the weekend and into next week in an effort to conclude legislative business which should have been completed months ago. The good people of South Dakota honored me by electing me to represent their interests and values in the Senate, and I simply cannot neglect those duties by leaving Washington today. While I cannot be with dad on this very special day in his life, I rise to express my long appreciation for a father who has always been there for me. Dad taught me about the importance of family, of fatherhood, of faith, and of personal integrity. He taught me about the importance of public service--that life is more than about the collection of things, and that helping make the world a better place is, indeed, a central purpose to our lives. Dad was there for me, whether it involved the countless family camping trips, athletic events, school work, or church activities--all at a time when he was intensely busy with his own career as a highly regarded teacher, coach, professor, and university administrator. He and mom were and are a great team, and my brother Tom and my sister Julie and I have benefited all our lives from their loving guidance and care. As a father of three children, and now a new grandfather myself, I continue to draw from the values imparted to me from my father and find with each passing year how profoundly important they are. But dad, although an educator all his adult life, did not teach exclusively in a pedagogical manner. Many of the greatest things I learned from dad came from observing his example--his commitment to our family, his love for mom, his dedication to professional excellence, and his willingness to assume leadership roles in the church and in our community. Dad, it deeply disappoints me that I cannot be with you today, but know that I am with you in thought and spirit. Happy 90th birthday, dad. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to publicly commend Linda Barker, a resident of Sioux Falls, SD, on her selection as the recipient of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation's annual Spirit of Sioux Falls Award. The Spirit of Sioux Falls Award is given annually in memory of the eight people who were killed when then South Dakota Gov. George Mickelson's plane crashed in 1993. This year, the recipient was Linda Barker, a member of the community who has shown leadership and commitment to the economic development in Sioux Falls. Dan Scott, President of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, said that Linda, who is currently a member of the Board of Directors for the Development Foundation, was chosen because she ``has been an incredibly valuable member of the Board of Directors. Not just because she has attended the meetings, but because she has been in our office on a weekly basis offering any kind of help the staff needed.'' During her service with the South Dakota Development Foundation, she was instrumental in a number of ways. In addition to her work with the Forward Sioux Falls program, her leadership helped the Development Foundation acquire enough land to serve as development parks for the next fifteen years. According to Mr. Scott, they are now well prepared to handle the needs in the development park arena for the future. She was also instrumental in serving as chairman of the membership committee--essentially revitalizing and reenergizing their membership effort, raising the number from 350 to 400 members. Linda's involvement in the Sioux Falls area comes from her love of the community. In her thirteen years as part owner of Business Aviation Services in Sioux Falls, she was instrumental in helping the company more than quadruple its business, increasing sales from $4 million to $18 million annually. The company has also added 100 employees and it now owns or manages 48 aircraft, compared with six in 1990, when Linda joined the ownership team. Dale Froehlich, president and chief executive officer of Business Aviation, said Linda's success is ``because of her unwillingness to give up, even in the dreariest of situations.'' It is this type of hard work and dedication that led Linda to her success and her subsequent recognition with the Spirit of Sioux Falls Award. This prestigious award is a reflection of her extraordinary leadership, skill and commitment to South Dakota. I am pleased that her success is being publicly recognized, and I am confident that her achievements will serve as an exemplary model for talented South Dakotans throughout our state. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Citizens such as Linda Barker are examples to all of us. She is an extraordinary individual who richly deserves this distinguished recognition. I strongly commend her hard work and dedication, and I am very pleased that her efforts are being publicly honored and celebrated. It is with great honor that I share her impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President. As we approach this holiday season of Thanksgiving, I want to draw attention to National Adoption Month as we celebrate it this month. I am joining my colleagues on the Congressional Coalition for Adoption this month to increase awareness and knowledge of the obstacles that children in foster care face while waiting to be adopted and to encourage more families to consider adopting. Currently, there are 580,000 children in the foster care system in America, 126,000 of whom are waiting to be adopted. Yet, only 20 to 25 percent of foster children waiting for adoption will ever find an adoptive family before aging out of government care. The foster care system has been extremely important in rescuing abused and neglected children. However, the foster care system was designed to be a temporary situation, but it is increasingly becoming a permanent guardian for many children. This is particularly true for children who are not adopted in their early years or who find themselves in foster care at an older age. Of the 126,000 children waiting to be adopted approximately half are 9 years of age or older. Every year an average of 100 children in South Dakota, and 25,000 children nationally, age out of the foster care system at the age of 18, often with very little if any support system in pace. These children often face the challenges of homelessness, college noncompletion, unemployment, and a lack of health care. Transitional living and mentoring program can alleviate some of these concerns but programs face the strains of staff shortages and underfunding. I must commend the South Dakota Coalition for Children for working to secure Medicaid coverage for children that age out of the foster care system until they reach the age of 22. This eliminates one serious concern many former foster care youths face with they are no longer in Government care, but it does not replace the support of a loving family. On November 22, 2003, courts across the country joined State agencies, children in foster care and hopeful parents to finalize adoptions and demonstrate the large number of children waiting for safe, stable, permanent homes. As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday and gather with our families, we should not forget those children still waiting for a loving, permanent family to be thankful for.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Chief Warrant Officer Two Scott A. Saboe, a resident of Willow Lake, SD, who died on November 15, 2003, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Chief Warrant Officer Two Saboe, a member of A Company, 4th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, was based out of Fort Campbell, KY. He was among 17 soldiers killed when two Army Black Hawk helicopters collided midair in the northern Iraq city of Mosul. Answering America's call to the military, Chief Warrant Officer Two Saboe had planned a military career since attending high school at Willow Lake, SD. A member of the football, basketball, and track teams, friends remember him as a serious and committed person. Chief Warrant Officer Two Saboe's former coach and teacher Bill Stobbs said that ``he died doing what he loved, and he was a dedicated soldier.'' His childhood friend, Darin Michalski, knew that ``he was giving his all and believing in what he was doing.'' For all of Chief Warrant Officer Two Saboe's commitment to public service, nothing was more important than his family. The 33-year-old leaves behind his wife Franceska and 6-year-old son, Dustin, as well as his sister Ann Remington, who is stationed at Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. He also leaves behind his father, Arlo Saboe, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, in addition to his proud, extended family and countless friends. Chief Warrant Officer Two Saboe served our country and, as a hero, died fighting for it. He served as a model example of the loyalty and dedication in the preservation of freedom. The thoughts and prayers of my family as well as the rest of the country's are with his family during this time of mourning. Our thoughts continue to be with all those families with children, spouses, and loved ones serving overseas. Chief Warrant Officer Two Saboe led a full life, committed to his family, his Nation, and his community. It is his incredible dedication to helping others that will serve as his greatest legacy. Our Nation is a far better place because of Chief Warrant Officer Two Saboe's life, and, while his family, friends, and Nation will miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to service and community. In the words of Michalski, ``Most of us go through our whole lives and don't really accomplish anything. And some of us only live to be 33, and we're heroes.'' I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of Chief Warrant Officer Two Saboe. I know that he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Private First Class Sheldon R. Hawk Eagle, a former resident of Eagle Butte, SD, who died on November 15, 2003, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pfc. Hawk Eagle, a member of the 1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery, 101st Airborne Division, was based out of Fort Campbell, KY. He was among 17 soldiers killed when two Army Black Hawk helicopters collided mid-air in the northern Iraq city of Mosul. Answering America's call to the military, Pfc. Hawk Eagle enlisted in the Army during a visit to his sister in Grand Forks, ND. An enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, his Lakota name was Wanbli Ohitika, meaning Brave Eagle. A descendant of Crazy Horse, military duty was essentially a family duty in his home. His family, from his grandfather to his uncle to his father, all served their country in the armed forces. News of his death spread rapidly through Indian Country, but not faster than on the Cheyenne River Reservation where he was raised by his aunt and uncle, Harvey and Bernadine Hawk Eagle, after his parents passed away. Emanuel Red Bear, a spiritual leader in the community, remembers Pfc. Hawk Eagle as ``a role model in his quiet way. He was a modern-day warrior.'' His sister, Frankie Hawk Eagle remembers that, ``His goals were important to him, and his whole persona was full of life. He was well-respected in the Armed Forces and believed that everything he did was for his family, his Native people and for the most, his country. He was Pfc. R. Hawk Eagle, a United States Army Soldier.'' Pfc. Hawk Eagle served our country and, as a hero, died fighting for it. Native Americans have a great history of serving in the Armed Forces and fighting and dying to protect this country, including the ``Code Talkers'' of World War II. Pfc. Hawk Eagle served as a contemporary example of that loyalty and dedication to the preservation of freedom. The thoughts and prayers of my family as well as the rest of the country's are with his family during this time of mourning. Our thoughts continue to be with all those families with children, spouses, and loved ones serving overseas. Pfc. Hawk Eagle led a full life, committed to his family, his Nation, and his community. It is his incredible dedication to helping others that will serve as his greatest legacy. Our Nation is a far better place because of his life, and, while his family, friends, and Nation will miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to service and community. I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of Private First Class Sheldon Hawk Eagle. 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 rise today to discuss an article entitled ``The Stovepipe'' by Seymour Hersh that appeared in a recent edition of The New Yorker magazine. The article outlines a series of disturbing intelligence failures within the Bush administration leading up to the war in Iraq. From ignoring career intelligence analysts to relying on unreliable raw data, the article makes the case that senior members of the Bush administration often ignored information that did not fit their preconceived view of the situation in Iraq and pushed the intelligence community to come up with information that would support their position, regardless of its accuracy. In particular, the article outlines the practice of ``stovepiping'' information in which intelligence was passed up through the administration without subjecting it to a thorough review by intelligence professionals. The bad intelligence that resulted from this process was then used to convince our Nation of the need to engage in a near-unilateral, pre- emptive war in Iraq to protect the American people from what was described as an imminent threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As a result of this go it alone approach in Iraq, the Bush administration has alienated much of the world, told U.S. taxpayers that they are financially responsible for rebuilding Iraq, and ordered more than a hundred thousand U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future--yet no evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been found. Mr. President, there is no doubt that at one time Iraq possessed chemical weapons. We know that Saddam Hussein used these weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and on his own people. There is also no doubt that at one point Saddam Hussein pursued a nuclear weapons program. However, the Iraq Survey Group--the group charged with finding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction--has yet to turn up any proof of the huge WMD stockpiles and nuclear weapons program of which the Bush administration repeatedly told us they had evidence. It is clear that the world and the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal dictator who terrorized his own people and destabilized the entire Middle East. I am extremely proud of the men and women of our Armed Forces for their actions during the war and the ongoing efforts to stabilize the country. Now that we are there, we cannot ``cut and run'' and we must provide our troops with the resources they need to complete their mission and to return home as soon as possible. However, I am deeply concerned that we sent our sons and daughters to war based largely on what turns out to be faulty intelligence. The ends of the war do not justify the means by which the Bush administration convinced the American people that this war was necessary. That is why I believe we need to have an independent investigation into the acquisition and use of intelligence leading up to the decision to go to war in Iraq, not as a political attack, but as a way to make sure that future decisions about whether or not our country goes to war based on the best possible intelligence. Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues to read this important Hersh article from The New Yorker of October 21, 2003.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I am sure it is a great place. I have not been there. I am sure it is wonderful. He used the whole day to talk about that, while we hear endlessly, Why are we not talking about veterans benefits or unemployment when all Monday was used by the Democratic side to talk about Searchlight, NV. It is a wonderful place, I am sure, but I don't know of any legislation pending about Searchlight, NV. Why weren't we talking on Monday about these things and not addressing the great issues of the day or addressing what we need to be doing about the war in Iraq? Instead, we are talking about Searchlight, NV. Where was the protest? Where was the anger? Where was the outrage. How about rabbits eating cactus? Again, I am sure it is a great place. No offense to anyone from Searchlight, NV. A week ago Friday, a week ago today, the other side ate a whole day up and we got no votes done on appropriations bills because they were chewing it up on filibustering at that point. Where was the outrage? We were not dealing with the great issues of the day. I guess it did not matter at that point in time. I find it interesting that this is all about fundraising. It seems the people fundraising are the left. This is NARAL, National Abortion Rights Action League, their Web site, going to task on Charles Pickering; others on the left, pushing this hard for fundraising and organizational purposes. I don't think that is at the root of what we are talking about and why we are spending this time and why we are being tied up on something that has been without precedent, a blockage of Federal judges. This is really about a big issue, and that is why we are here at 6 in the morning on Friday, because we are talking about a big issue and we need to talk about other issues as well--which I agree with; we need to talk about other items, but we need to talk about this one, too. When you get a judiciary that is blocked, you need to talk about it. Why would these folks be blocked? These are highly qualified. They get painted different ways, but we have been through ad nauseam the qualifications. They are highly qualified judges in mainstream positions in their States on the highest courts in Texas and California--I guess Texas and California are mainstream--they are on the highest courts. One is on the Federal bench in Mississippi, approved by this body previously. What this comes back to--and the Senator from Pennsylvania was hitting it when we last had the floor--was a discovered right by the Supreme Court, the right to privacy. If we blow away the smoke and we are stating why we are here at this point in time and why would such qualified judges be blocked, it is because of the court that has been writing laws and about the right of privacy, or this constitutional right, discovery. It is not in this document, as the Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, the right to privacy. I find it interesting that others have mentioned that the appellate court writes laws and that is why the judges are important. The lower court, the Federal district trial court, does not write laws, but the appellate court does. There is the issue and the problem. The appellate court does not write laws. The Supreme Court does not write laws. They interpret the laws. They interpret the Constitution. They do not write it. Unfortunately, people in this body look at it differently. Some are saying, yes, the court can write laws at the appellate and the Supreme Court. If that is the case, we have a second legislative body in Washington: We have three units of government, but two happen to be legislative and one executive. Yes, one legislative also has a court and judicial judges as well, but we have a second legislative body. And we are seeing this stream develop further with some people on the other side of the aisle saying we should examine the political opinions of people we are appointing to the bench. If they are going to be a judge and they are going to interpret the law, why should a political opinion be of significance in the consideration? That is not their role. They are not a legislature. I am a legislator; you are a legislator; people in this body are legislators, but those on the Supreme Court or court of appeals are not legislators. Some say, OK, we need to examine the political ideology of the people coming forward for the bench even though they are saying we will follow the law and that leads to writing laws on the bench. I hold to the opinion--most people on this side do--what you want in a judge is someone who interprets the law and interprets the Constitution and does not write it. There would be times I would have actually liked a judge to interpret something to the right and write it more conservatively. I would think that would be appealing to me, but I don't want a judge like that. I don't want a judge to do that. That is my job. That is not his or her job. I am asking for one to stay within the document and not to discover or write amendments to this document. I want them to interpret the law. This is what we are seeing seep into this. These are not legislators. These are not legislators-to-be, going on the bench, who write laws. They interpret the laws. What we have seen taking place is one of the biggest laws written by the bench over the last 4 years, the right to privacy, or as is more common vernacular today, this is about abortion and the Supreme Court's discovering this right. That is why all the judges are always quizzed ad infinitum about their views, because if the court can write that law, the court can repeal that law, so they do not want someone to go on with a political philosophy contrary to this, who might write the law differently. Now, we have a bad premise here. The court should not be writing law. The court should be interpreting laws. So stick within the documents. We also have a bad premise in the second step, looking at the political philosophy of someone being appointed. No, look at the qualifications and their willingness to uphold the Constitution. We are down a bad road a couple of steps already. That is why we are here at this time of day, because these four appellate court judges would be not questioned to any degree if it was not about political philosophy. That is the issue, and it is a big issue, and it is worthy of this discussion. And it is sad we are at this point because I have some of my colleagues here who want to speak and I do not want to dominate this half hour.